qualified_trash
05-17 12:32 PM
gc03:
Go and search for Lou Dobbs in this forum.
This forum is purely for discussing issues related to problems and difficulties of high skilled legal immigrants., affected by inefficiency of backlog centers, LCs and lack of visa numbers, GC issues and the consequent retrogression.
I haven't gone to the link you provided, because I don't need to. Has Mr.Dobbs advocated our issues, our goals anytime in his effort to highlight immigration issues? I don't think so. He does what is convenient for him and for his ratings and viewership.
So, please let's end this discussion here and please refrain from quoting and promoting the foul mouth Lou Dobbs.
I hope you will understand. Thanks.
Why are members on this forum so eager to ask others to refrain from this or refrain from that? Are we all not adults leading professionally successful lives. Can we all not have a discussion with varying points of view? I am asking someone - WAIT - begging someone from the core group to ask everyone to stop doing this? What use are our degrees and experience if we cannot listen to dissent? I would like to call this 'EDUCATED ILLITERACY' if I may.
The question posed by the other user was rhetorical in nature. I am not sure why he should understand and refrain. I think the others should either agree/disagree/no comment with him and refrain from asking him to keep quiet.
Go and search for Lou Dobbs in this forum.
This forum is purely for discussing issues related to problems and difficulties of high skilled legal immigrants., affected by inefficiency of backlog centers, LCs and lack of visa numbers, GC issues and the consequent retrogression.
I haven't gone to the link you provided, because I don't need to. Has Mr.Dobbs advocated our issues, our goals anytime in his effort to highlight immigration issues? I don't think so. He does what is convenient for him and for his ratings and viewership.
So, please let's end this discussion here and please refrain from quoting and promoting the foul mouth Lou Dobbs.
I hope you will understand. Thanks.
Why are members on this forum so eager to ask others to refrain from this or refrain from that? Are we all not adults leading professionally successful lives. Can we all not have a discussion with varying points of view? I am asking someone - WAIT - begging someone from the core group to ask everyone to stop doing this? What use are our degrees and experience if we cannot listen to dissent? I would like to call this 'EDUCATED ILLITERACY' if I may.
The question posed by the other user was rhetorical in nature. I am not sure why he should understand and refrain. I think the others should either agree/disagree/no comment with him and refrain from asking him to keep quiet.
wallpaper womens air max 2010 net shoes
file485
07-08 05:05 PM
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
I am not aware of any GC stage that requires all pay stubs. How did they detect missing pay stubs for 6+ months?
reminds me of a backhome saying..
'pinching the butt and singing a lullaby" :)
the only way the relationship between the employer/employee is the green$$ pay stub...never trust these USCIS Memo's ..all crap and BS..
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
I am not aware of any GC stage that requires all pay stubs. How did they detect missing pay stubs for 6+ months?
reminds me of a backhome saying..
'pinching the butt and singing a lullaby" :)
the only way the relationship between the employer/employee is the green$$ pay stub...never trust these USCIS Memo's ..all crap and BS..
hiralal
06-26 09:56 PM
ok if its not throwing money away, how do you get the money back you spent on renting? Nothing you said above answers that question.
Pandey ji / Valid IV
o.k..I will explain it slowly ..I can understand that those who are homeowners will justify their home purchase. some maybe in denial and have their head in sand.
honestly, few months back, even I would have purchased a house . if I had, I would still admit -- that home is not necessarily good investment but a place to stay. even after I buy, I would still say that renting in an apartment has its advantages. here are 2 links in english.
Why rent? To get richer - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/WhyRentToGetRicher.aspx)
Why Your Mortgage Won't Make You Rich - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124352291846962809.html)
--------------
now you need to read this carefully else you won't understand what the authors are trying to say ..since it is bit unclear but it has good points (not trying to make fun here :)) ..do read since they are superb articles
but here is even simpler explanation and hopefully that will explain what I am trying to say ..if you still don't understand ..u will need to find someone else to explain.
first renting gives you flexibility ...so say, u get better job offer or lose job - you don't lose lot of money compared to house if you have to move.
for 250K house, you pay around 300 property tax, 60 HOA fees, 150 - 200 in maintenance (recurring like lawn plus once in long term like roof, painting etc) , 100 - 150 extra in utilities. you pay downpayment of 50 k ..if you were to invest that money in better investments (mutual funds, stocks, high CDs. bonds) ..you would make 250 - 300 per month. plus add fees when you have to sell the house, insurance, termite protection etc etc ..
plus in many cases, you end up buying a house further away than if you were to rent (since many want brand new house ) ..this means extra 250 - 300 in gas + vehicle degradation per month.
(ALSO SAY U WERE IN MICHIGAN OR IN CALIFORtNIA -- you could get away from the state after making money easily if you were renting. .home means you could end up stuck there).
I agree in apartment you get less space and hence I mentioned - u need to ask - do you really need extra space at this time in life - if yes, then home is better. (but renting a home is even better esp if prices are still falling in your area in this case).
btw - as of now rents are going down -- you just need to negotiate.
now you don't get the money back in rents..but neither do you get money paid in the expenses listed above.
(in other words - you don't get money back that you pay in rent yr apt BUT you get a place to stay ..this is not India where you can sleep on foot path - so you need a place. apartment property owner will make a small profit - but that is the system)
before you jump - house is good when it appreciates by atleast 1 -2 percent above inflation and I am not saying that you should never buy a house.
there are many other points and I will post it in IV WIKI ...and I hope this helps newcomers ...this is my last personal post ...and do watch the movie :) ..once again I did mention in plain english that it is worst case scenario (the movie "pacific heights")..but best case scenario is not good either if you are a landlord with property in US while you are in India (or vice versa).
hope that answers your question ..please note: the above is for normal cases ..but if you get a good deal or short sale or foreclosed home for 50K --- then yes, buying makes sense !!
Pandey ji / Valid IV
o.k..I will explain it slowly ..I can understand that those who are homeowners will justify their home purchase. some maybe in denial and have their head in sand.
honestly, few months back, even I would have purchased a house . if I had, I would still admit -- that home is not necessarily good investment but a place to stay. even after I buy, I would still say that renting in an apartment has its advantages. here are 2 links in english.
Why rent? To get richer - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/WhyRentToGetRicher.aspx)
Why Your Mortgage Won't Make You Rich - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124352291846962809.html)
--------------
now you need to read this carefully else you won't understand what the authors are trying to say ..since it is bit unclear but it has good points (not trying to make fun here :)) ..do read since they are superb articles
but here is even simpler explanation and hopefully that will explain what I am trying to say ..if you still don't understand ..u will need to find someone else to explain.
first renting gives you flexibility ...so say, u get better job offer or lose job - you don't lose lot of money compared to house if you have to move.
for 250K house, you pay around 300 property tax, 60 HOA fees, 150 - 200 in maintenance (recurring like lawn plus once in long term like roof, painting etc) , 100 - 150 extra in utilities. you pay downpayment of 50 k ..if you were to invest that money in better investments (mutual funds, stocks, high CDs. bonds) ..you would make 250 - 300 per month. plus add fees when you have to sell the house, insurance, termite protection etc etc ..
plus in many cases, you end up buying a house further away than if you were to rent (since many want brand new house ) ..this means extra 250 - 300 in gas + vehicle degradation per month.
(ALSO SAY U WERE IN MICHIGAN OR IN CALIFORtNIA -- you could get away from the state after making money easily if you were renting. .home means you could end up stuck there).
I agree in apartment you get less space and hence I mentioned - u need to ask - do you really need extra space at this time in life - if yes, then home is better. (but renting a home is even better esp if prices are still falling in your area in this case).
btw - as of now rents are going down -- you just need to negotiate.
now you don't get the money back in rents..but neither do you get money paid in the expenses listed above.
(in other words - you don't get money back that you pay in rent yr apt BUT you get a place to stay ..this is not India where you can sleep on foot path - so you need a place. apartment property owner will make a small profit - but that is the system)
before you jump - house is good when it appreciates by atleast 1 -2 percent above inflation and I am not saying that you should never buy a house.
there are many other points and I will post it in IV WIKI ...and I hope this helps newcomers ...this is my last personal post ...and do watch the movie :) ..once again I did mention in plain english that it is worst case scenario (the movie "pacific heights")..but best case scenario is not good either if you are a landlord with property in US while you are in India (or vice versa).
hope that answers your question ..please note: the above is for normal cases ..but if you get a good deal or short sale or foreclosed home for 50K --- then yes, buying makes sense !!
2011 2010 nike lebron 5 shoes black
delax
07-13 09:48 PM
[QUOTE=kutra;262395]Disclaimer: I am an EB3-Indian with a PD of Oct 2003.
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
I am not trying to convince anybody about the merits. The original post asked for comments which I offered. PL read this post of mine
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
I am not at all surprised at the 'backlash'.
I appreciate your input and candor
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
I am not trying to convince anybody about the merits. The original post asked for comments which I offered. PL read this post of mine
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
I am not at all surprised at the 'backlash'.
I appreciate your input and candor
more...
wc_user
04-14 07:09 PM
We are looking to buy a house and the bank is asking us to put down 10%. How much money is considered safe to have after down-payment if we are buying a home. I know it depends on the situation, but I would like some estimates/ball-park figures.
Macaca
05-27 05:56 PM
U.S. Must Adapt to China's New Patterns of Growth ( | World Politics Review) By IAIN MILLS | World Politics Review
The global financial crisis catapulted China into a position of international economic leadership a decade earlier than Beijing's strategists had intended. That significantly increased the urgency of rebalancing the Chinese economy away from the low-quality, export model toward higher-value, domestically driven growth.
One consequence has been new and accelerated patterns of Chinese trade and investment abroad. For the United States, China's largest economic partner, the implications of this new multidirectionalism are significant. But with recent figures showing that bilateral investment between the two countries is contracting, the U.S. must adapt its approach to this issue to ensure it benefits from the forthcoming chapter in China's domestic growth story.
American investment and consumption were the two key drivers of China's economy in its early reform years. By the time the global financial crisis struck, China had amassed $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, and it has added another trillion since. The U.S. economy benefitted from cheap, inflation-suppressing Chinese goods, while China's absorption of American debt was a key facilitator of the pre-2008 credit bubble.
Beijing seemed content to watch the coffers swell, while largely ignoring the need to rebalance the Chinese economy and devise strategies for making use of its mounting foreign exchange reserves. But the post-crisis collapse of investment and demand from developed economies has forced China to mobilize newly acquired national wealth to maintain economic momentum.
China's overseas investment strategy was originally aimed at securing key natural resources. Recently, there has been a growing focus on importing advanced technology and machinery, particularly in "strategic sectors" identified in the 12th Five-Year Plan. International expansion is being led by increasingly cash-rich state-owned enterprises and their affiliates, with sovereign wealth vehicles such as China Investment Corporation and China Development Bank also adopting more active investment strategies.
But early indicators suggest the U.S. is missing out on the first wave of new Chinese overseas spending. As one recent report on the subject notes, "the main event in 2010 was a flood of [Chinese] money into the Western Hemisphere outside the U.S., led by Brazil but also featuring Canada, Argentina and Ecuador." Last year, China's total nonfinancial outbound direct investment (ODI) jumped 38 percent, to $60 billion, even as Chinese ODI to the U.S. contracted slightly, to just less than $6 billion. Inversely, April's foreign direct investment (FDI) into China was up by more than 15 percent on the year, but American FDI dropped 28 percent.
For China, the benefits of reducing asymmetric interdependence with the U.S. economy are clear, but it is less apparent whether the U.S. can currently afford to miss out on the huge opportunities presented by China's continued domestic growth and rapidly increasing overseas spending. Therefore, while the yuan remains a critical issue in bilateral relations, reaching consensus on the scale and scope of bilateral nonfinancial investment is an equally significant emerging topic. And although a series of diplomatic disputes in 2010 may have been partly to blame for depressed Chinese investment, the institutional arrangements of U.S.-China relations have generally failed to keep pace with China's rapid economic ascent.
Nowhere is this clearer than in bilateral investment agreements.
China is keen to expand its investments in the U.S. agricultural, natural resource, advanced manufacturing and financial sectors. But political resistance in the U.S. is high, and sources in Beijing claim that Washington is giving mixed signals over how welcome Chinese investment is. Chinese officials are seeking a list of acceptable investment areas from Washington and seem frustrated by the complex institutional arrangements of the U.S. political economy. Meanwhile, American officials have expressed concern about the security implications of Chinese capital, and a general lack of transparency on the Chinese side continues to exacerbate these fears.
Clearly, resolving these issues requires action from both sides. Washington must accept Chinese overseas investment as an economic reality going forward and design a strategy capable of deploying it in support of the national interest. The politicization of the yuan has damaged Washington's credibility in Beijing; avoiding a similar degeneration of legitimate debate on investment parameters must be a strategic priority. Washington should consider mechanisms for targeting Chinese capital in areas where it is needed most, such as urban real estate development and manufacturing. These need not amount to a centrally imposed directory, as produced annually by Beijing, but rather a semi-formal consensus that provides some kind of consistent framework for prospective Chinese investors.
Washington could also learn from the European Union's approach, which tends to maintain a greater distinction between ideological and economic policy differences with Beijing. Although the EU has the luxury of leaving political criticism to national governments, Brussels has been more low-key and consistent in discussions with Beijing on potentially inflammatory economic issues such as the yuan and China's "market economy" status. As a result, financial and nonfinancial economic integration between the two has increased substantially since 2008.
For its part, China must accept that poor standards of domestic corporate governance remain a major barrier to future economic development at home and abroad. The credibility of Chinese companies is undermined by opaque ownership structures and a general lack of transparency regarding strategic and commercial intentions. Notably, over the past five years, there has been a direct correlation between total Chinese investment in a given country and the volume of failed deals, regardless of the developmental level of the host nation. Moreover, foreign investment in China remains heavily regulated. Beijing must accept greater liberalization at home before it can push the issue too far with international partners.
Clearly, China has the responsibility to improve its domestic culture of openness and accountability. Greater and more symmetrical engagement with experienced capitalist nations can hasten this process while providing much-needed capital injections to the latters' ailing economies.
For the U.S., the central challenge is to formulate more consistent and strategically constructive responses to China's economic rise. That would entail initiating a paradigm shift in Washington -- one that focuses less on "the China threat" and more on how to benefit from new opportunities presented by China's rise.
GOP sees red over China (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55559.html) By Alexander Burns | Politico
America And China: Finding Cooperation, Avoiding Conflict? (http://blogs.forbes.com/dougbandow/2011/05/23/america-and-china-finding-cooperation-avoiding-conflict/) By Doug Bandow | Forbes
Henry Kissinger on China. Or Not.
Statesman Henry Kissinger takes a cautious view of Beijing's reaction to the Arab Spring, and U.S. relations with the world's rising power. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576321393783531506.html)
By BRET STEPHENS | Wall Street Journal
Kissinger and China (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/09/kissinger-and-china/) By Jonathan D. Spence | The New York Review of Books
Henry Kissinger’s On China (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/26/henry-kissinger%E2%80%99s-on-china/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
General Chen’s Assurance Not Entirely Reassuring (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/general-chen%E2%80%99s-assurance-not-entirely-reassuring-5351) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Skeptics
Go to China, young scientist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/go-to-china-young-scientist/2011/05/19/AFCY227G_story.html) By Matthew Stremlau | The Washington Post
No go
The Western politician who understands China best tries to explain it—but doesn’t quite succeed (http://www.economist.com/node/18709581)
The Economist
Europe Frets Over Trade Deficits With China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/economy/21charts.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | New York Times
China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/world/americas/27brazil.html) By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times
The global financial crisis catapulted China into a position of international economic leadership a decade earlier than Beijing's strategists had intended. That significantly increased the urgency of rebalancing the Chinese economy away from the low-quality, export model toward higher-value, domestically driven growth.
One consequence has been new and accelerated patterns of Chinese trade and investment abroad. For the United States, China's largest economic partner, the implications of this new multidirectionalism are significant. But with recent figures showing that bilateral investment between the two countries is contracting, the U.S. must adapt its approach to this issue to ensure it benefits from the forthcoming chapter in China's domestic growth story.
American investment and consumption were the two key drivers of China's economy in its early reform years. By the time the global financial crisis struck, China had amassed $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, and it has added another trillion since. The U.S. economy benefitted from cheap, inflation-suppressing Chinese goods, while China's absorption of American debt was a key facilitator of the pre-2008 credit bubble.
Beijing seemed content to watch the coffers swell, while largely ignoring the need to rebalance the Chinese economy and devise strategies for making use of its mounting foreign exchange reserves. But the post-crisis collapse of investment and demand from developed economies has forced China to mobilize newly acquired national wealth to maintain economic momentum.
China's overseas investment strategy was originally aimed at securing key natural resources. Recently, there has been a growing focus on importing advanced technology and machinery, particularly in "strategic sectors" identified in the 12th Five-Year Plan. International expansion is being led by increasingly cash-rich state-owned enterprises and their affiliates, with sovereign wealth vehicles such as China Investment Corporation and China Development Bank also adopting more active investment strategies.
But early indicators suggest the U.S. is missing out on the first wave of new Chinese overseas spending. As one recent report on the subject notes, "the main event in 2010 was a flood of [Chinese] money into the Western Hemisphere outside the U.S., led by Brazil but also featuring Canada, Argentina and Ecuador." Last year, China's total nonfinancial outbound direct investment (ODI) jumped 38 percent, to $60 billion, even as Chinese ODI to the U.S. contracted slightly, to just less than $6 billion. Inversely, April's foreign direct investment (FDI) into China was up by more than 15 percent on the year, but American FDI dropped 28 percent.
For China, the benefits of reducing asymmetric interdependence with the U.S. economy are clear, but it is less apparent whether the U.S. can currently afford to miss out on the huge opportunities presented by China's continued domestic growth and rapidly increasing overseas spending. Therefore, while the yuan remains a critical issue in bilateral relations, reaching consensus on the scale and scope of bilateral nonfinancial investment is an equally significant emerging topic. And although a series of diplomatic disputes in 2010 may have been partly to blame for depressed Chinese investment, the institutional arrangements of U.S.-China relations have generally failed to keep pace with China's rapid economic ascent.
Nowhere is this clearer than in bilateral investment agreements.
China is keen to expand its investments in the U.S. agricultural, natural resource, advanced manufacturing and financial sectors. But political resistance in the U.S. is high, and sources in Beijing claim that Washington is giving mixed signals over how welcome Chinese investment is. Chinese officials are seeking a list of acceptable investment areas from Washington and seem frustrated by the complex institutional arrangements of the U.S. political economy. Meanwhile, American officials have expressed concern about the security implications of Chinese capital, and a general lack of transparency on the Chinese side continues to exacerbate these fears.
Clearly, resolving these issues requires action from both sides. Washington must accept Chinese overseas investment as an economic reality going forward and design a strategy capable of deploying it in support of the national interest. The politicization of the yuan has damaged Washington's credibility in Beijing; avoiding a similar degeneration of legitimate debate on investment parameters must be a strategic priority. Washington should consider mechanisms for targeting Chinese capital in areas where it is needed most, such as urban real estate development and manufacturing. These need not amount to a centrally imposed directory, as produced annually by Beijing, but rather a semi-formal consensus that provides some kind of consistent framework for prospective Chinese investors.
Washington could also learn from the European Union's approach, which tends to maintain a greater distinction between ideological and economic policy differences with Beijing. Although the EU has the luxury of leaving political criticism to national governments, Brussels has been more low-key and consistent in discussions with Beijing on potentially inflammatory economic issues such as the yuan and China's "market economy" status. As a result, financial and nonfinancial economic integration between the two has increased substantially since 2008.
For its part, China must accept that poor standards of domestic corporate governance remain a major barrier to future economic development at home and abroad. The credibility of Chinese companies is undermined by opaque ownership structures and a general lack of transparency regarding strategic and commercial intentions. Notably, over the past five years, there has been a direct correlation between total Chinese investment in a given country and the volume of failed deals, regardless of the developmental level of the host nation. Moreover, foreign investment in China remains heavily regulated. Beijing must accept greater liberalization at home before it can push the issue too far with international partners.
Clearly, China has the responsibility to improve its domestic culture of openness and accountability. Greater and more symmetrical engagement with experienced capitalist nations can hasten this process while providing much-needed capital injections to the latters' ailing economies.
For the U.S., the central challenge is to formulate more consistent and strategically constructive responses to China's economic rise. That would entail initiating a paradigm shift in Washington -- one that focuses less on "the China threat" and more on how to benefit from new opportunities presented by China's rise.
GOP sees red over China (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55559.html) By Alexander Burns | Politico
America And China: Finding Cooperation, Avoiding Conflict? (http://blogs.forbes.com/dougbandow/2011/05/23/america-and-china-finding-cooperation-avoiding-conflict/) By Doug Bandow | Forbes
Henry Kissinger on China. Or Not.
Statesman Henry Kissinger takes a cautious view of Beijing's reaction to the Arab Spring, and U.S. relations with the world's rising power. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576321393783531506.html)
By BRET STEPHENS | Wall Street Journal
Kissinger and China (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/09/kissinger-and-china/) By Jonathan D. Spence | The New York Review of Books
Henry Kissinger’s On China (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/26/henry-kissinger%E2%80%99s-on-china/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
General Chen’s Assurance Not Entirely Reassuring (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/general-chen%E2%80%99s-assurance-not-entirely-reassuring-5351) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Skeptics
Go to China, young scientist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/go-to-china-young-scientist/2011/05/19/AFCY227G_story.html) By Matthew Stremlau | The Washington Post
No go
The Western politician who understands China best tries to explain it—but doesn’t quite succeed (http://www.economist.com/node/18709581)
The Economist
Europe Frets Over Trade Deficits With China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/economy/21charts.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | New York Times
China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/world/americas/27brazil.html) By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times
more...
subba
12-27 12:57 PM
Especially considering Sen. Cornyn seems to be opposed to some of the provisions being discussed for the illegal immigrants.
2010 lebron james shoes 2010.
Madhuri
05-16 11:08 AM
Very well said Sanju. You put everything in right perspective.
more...
seattleGC
02-21 11:24 AM
He is such nut job that he is not worth talking about.
hair nike air max lebron VIII(8)
Macaca
12-30 07:11 PM
Judgment that risks tainting democracy (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article1018825.ece) By VINAY SITAPATI | The Hindu
One thousand three hundred and twenty days after he was first arrested, Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition against the Indian state. Narratives on his guilt portray him as an �intellectual� coordinating Naxal attacks in the red corridor, just as narratives on his innocence are of a sainted doctor fingered by a vengeful state. But the only narrative that really matters is the legal case against him, and this in turn hinges on three distinct legal questions: Is the evidence against Dr. Sen enough to convict him? Are the laws applied to him fair? And finally, is the maximalist sentence (life imprisonment) justified?
Around a single event
The evidence against Dr. Sen centres on a single event. He is accused of having met a jailed Naxalite, Narayan Sanyal, 33 times and carried letters from him to a Naxalite, Piyush Guha. But Dr. Sen met Sanyal in Raipur Central Jail with the permission of the Chhattisgarh police; the jail superintendent who supervised the meetings told the Raipur sessions court that no letters were exchanged. At the other end of the �crime�, Piyush Guha did not name him when he appeared before a magistrate. He is alleged to have implicated Dr. Sen while in police custody. But this is legally barred from being weighed as evidence, since all custodial confessions are presumed tainted with torture.
The central allegation against him is therefore tenuous at both ends. Other attempts to link him to Naxalites are individually trivial (or downright dubious, like an unsigned letter from the CPI-Maoists allegedly found in his house, but which is not part of the official seizure memo). But taken together they have managed to convince Justice B.P. Verma of Dr. Sen's role in aiding and abetting Naxal groups.
The second concern is the fairness of the laws used against Dr. Sen. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Sedition) is a colonial-era law that has been previously invoked against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Since it is a serious offence with the possibility of life in jail, in the 1962 case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court limited the definition of sedition to the �tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.� Dr. Sen is convicted for acting as a letter courier between Naxalites; it is questionable if this �act� falls within the definition of sedition.
The other laws that Dr. Sen has been convicted under, the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, make illegal a wide variety of actions that �support� unlawful activities: taking part in meetings or harbouring a Naxalite. These laws have been invoked against grain merchants and cloth traders who unwittingly sold their wares to Naxalites. Taken together, what all these laws do is to broaden the scope of what �guilt by association� means. Perhaps this is understandable in a State where Maoists are present in half of its 18 districts and requires an army of civilian supporters to sustain a war under forested cover. But fashioning a blunt legal tool to go after an elusive enemy enhances the risk of snaring innocents.
The final concern
The Congress party has declined to comment on the judgment, invoking the prerogative of an independent judiciary. It is no one's argument that the decision was politically determined. But political abuse includes the fairness of the laws formulated by the political class for judges to impose. After all, judicial independence must also consider the quality of laws that the Raipur sessions court had to enforce, and those laws define �guilt by association� so broadly that they blur the line between innocent and guilty.
The final concern is that of punishment. Dr. Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiring to commit sedition. Sentencing ranges from three years to life in jail. Justifying the use of the maximalist sentence, Justice Verma's Hindi judgment points to �the way that terrorists and Maoists are killing ... paramilitary forces � and innocent Adivasis.� But surely there is a difference between CPI (Maoist) General Secretary Ganapati, a man with much blood on his hands, and a mere courier of letters between Naxalites? Even if Dr. Sen is guilty as charged, that charge is not of violence � something he has repeatedly spoken out against. To club varying actions together defeats the purpose of flexibility in sentencing, which is after all to permit the judge to recognise degrees of motivations and culpabilities.
The Raipur sessions court verdict is only the quarterfinal. Indian law affords Dr. Sen one automatic right to appeal, and another at the discretion of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, given the visible disparity between the quality of allegations against him and the repercussions, the judgment is sure to provoke an outcry, if the national and international outrage over his two-year long arrest without bail is any indication (already Amnesty International has criticised the verdict).
The outcry will reverberate beyond one man. In 2009, a non-violent critic of the state was held guilty of sedition and sentenced to a lengthy spell in prison. That man's name is Liu Xiaobo, and the international focus on him dims the mandarin equivalent of India Shining. While the specific �crimes� of the 2010 Nobel Prize winner vary from those of Dr. Binayak Sen, the life imprisonment given to the Chhattisgarh doctor will surely discredit the justifiable struggle against Naxalism much as Mr. Liu's incarceration discounts the distance China has travelled since Tiananmen Square. Apart from the irreparable harm to the life of an individual and his family, the judgment risks tainting Indian democracy itself.
The writer is a doctoral student working on law and politics in India
One thousand three hundred and twenty days after he was first arrested, Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition against the Indian state. Narratives on his guilt portray him as an �intellectual� coordinating Naxal attacks in the red corridor, just as narratives on his innocence are of a sainted doctor fingered by a vengeful state. But the only narrative that really matters is the legal case against him, and this in turn hinges on three distinct legal questions: Is the evidence against Dr. Sen enough to convict him? Are the laws applied to him fair? And finally, is the maximalist sentence (life imprisonment) justified?
Around a single event
The evidence against Dr. Sen centres on a single event. He is accused of having met a jailed Naxalite, Narayan Sanyal, 33 times and carried letters from him to a Naxalite, Piyush Guha. But Dr. Sen met Sanyal in Raipur Central Jail with the permission of the Chhattisgarh police; the jail superintendent who supervised the meetings told the Raipur sessions court that no letters were exchanged. At the other end of the �crime�, Piyush Guha did not name him when he appeared before a magistrate. He is alleged to have implicated Dr. Sen while in police custody. But this is legally barred from being weighed as evidence, since all custodial confessions are presumed tainted with torture.
The central allegation against him is therefore tenuous at both ends. Other attempts to link him to Naxalites are individually trivial (or downright dubious, like an unsigned letter from the CPI-Maoists allegedly found in his house, but which is not part of the official seizure memo). But taken together they have managed to convince Justice B.P. Verma of Dr. Sen's role in aiding and abetting Naxal groups.
The second concern is the fairness of the laws used against Dr. Sen. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Sedition) is a colonial-era law that has been previously invoked against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Since it is a serious offence with the possibility of life in jail, in the 1962 case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court limited the definition of sedition to the �tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.� Dr. Sen is convicted for acting as a letter courier between Naxalites; it is questionable if this �act� falls within the definition of sedition.
The other laws that Dr. Sen has been convicted under, the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, make illegal a wide variety of actions that �support� unlawful activities: taking part in meetings or harbouring a Naxalite. These laws have been invoked against grain merchants and cloth traders who unwittingly sold their wares to Naxalites. Taken together, what all these laws do is to broaden the scope of what �guilt by association� means. Perhaps this is understandable in a State where Maoists are present in half of its 18 districts and requires an army of civilian supporters to sustain a war under forested cover. But fashioning a blunt legal tool to go after an elusive enemy enhances the risk of snaring innocents.
The final concern
The Congress party has declined to comment on the judgment, invoking the prerogative of an independent judiciary. It is no one's argument that the decision was politically determined. But political abuse includes the fairness of the laws formulated by the political class for judges to impose. After all, judicial independence must also consider the quality of laws that the Raipur sessions court had to enforce, and those laws define �guilt by association� so broadly that they blur the line between innocent and guilty.
The final concern is that of punishment. Dr. Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiring to commit sedition. Sentencing ranges from three years to life in jail. Justifying the use of the maximalist sentence, Justice Verma's Hindi judgment points to �the way that terrorists and Maoists are killing ... paramilitary forces � and innocent Adivasis.� But surely there is a difference between CPI (Maoist) General Secretary Ganapati, a man with much blood on his hands, and a mere courier of letters between Naxalites? Even if Dr. Sen is guilty as charged, that charge is not of violence � something he has repeatedly spoken out against. To club varying actions together defeats the purpose of flexibility in sentencing, which is after all to permit the judge to recognise degrees of motivations and culpabilities.
The Raipur sessions court verdict is only the quarterfinal. Indian law affords Dr. Sen one automatic right to appeal, and another at the discretion of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, given the visible disparity between the quality of allegations against him and the repercussions, the judgment is sure to provoke an outcry, if the national and international outrage over his two-year long arrest without bail is any indication (already Amnesty International has criticised the verdict).
The outcry will reverberate beyond one man. In 2009, a non-violent critic of the state was held guilty of sedition and sentenced to a lengthy spell in prison. That man's name is Liu Xiaobo, and the international focus on him dims the mandarin equivalent of India Shining. While the specific �crimes� of the 2010 Nobel Prize winner vary from those of Dr. Binayak Sen, the life imprisonment given to the Chhattisgarh doctor will surely discredit the justifiable struggle against Naxalism much as Mr. Liu's incarceration discounts the distance China has travelled since Tiananmen Square. Apart from the irreparable harm to the life of an individual and his family, the judgment risks tainting Indian democracy itself.
The writer is a doctoral student working on law and politics in India
more...
fcres
08-07 04:40 PM
UN,
I understand u had a topsy turvy ride to GC urself...and ur story is posted somewhere....Can you or someone who may know point me to it...ur GC interview and what not?
Is this what you were looking for? Its in this thread itself.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=103959&postcount=74
I understand u had a topsy turvy ride to GC urself...and ur story is posted somewhere....Can you or someone who may know point me to it...ur GC interview and what not?
Is this what you were looking for? Its in this thread itself.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=103959&postcount=74
hot Air JD 2010 hoh Kobe Lebron
Macaca
02-17 02:33 PM
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU (http://aclu.org/))
Center for Responsive Politics (CRP (http://www.crp.org/))
CompeteAmerica (http://www.competeAmerica.org)
Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR (http://www.cirnow.org/))
Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC (http://www.ewic.org/))
Immigrants' List (http://immigrantslist.org/)
National Council of La Raza (NCLR (http://nclr.org/))
National Foundation for American Policy (http://www.nfap.com/)
National Immigration Forum (http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=732)
National Immigration Law Center (NILC (http://nilc.org/))
U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://www.uschamber.com/default)
Center for Responsive Politics (CRP (http://www.crp.org/))
CompeteAmerica (http://www.competeAmerica.org)
Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR (http://www.cirnow.org/))
Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC (http://www.ewic.org/))
Immigrants' List (http://immigrantslist.org/)
National Council of La Raza (NCLR (http://nclr.org/))
National Foundation for American Policy (http://www.nfap.com/)
National Immigration Forum (http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=732)
National Immigration Law Center (NILC (http://nilc.org/))
U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://www.uschamber.com/default)
more...
house NBA Feet: LeBron James Air
vallabhu
04-07 02:00 PM
Situation definitely requires some action from Congress, H1B program was introduced to help
American Corporates so they can hire best resources from all over the world where Americans
are not available, American Corps started taking undue advantage by hiring even if Citizens
were available just because they are getting H1's for lesser price, and showed this
miserable path to desi companies who abused it further.
If the current situation (with out this bill by just adding more h1's) continues not only US
economy will suffer (The number of available right people for any job will be less as hey
would be working for some desi company making 20$ an hour) even H1 aspirants will start
suffering upon Arrival to US and also those who live here will suffer from immense
competition (Just because of the reason that every job posting will be flooded with 1000's
of resumes and only lucky ones get picked you may be best but your resume has to be picked
for an interview call), as the number of jobs are lesser than people coming.
Unlimited H1 may be a solution but it is not practical, If the numbers are available then
desi companies won't bother to file so many applications without actual job, it makes
situation better for new H1's coming to US they will have a job instead to joining a desi
company and sitting on bench for long time(after quitting their job in India)
Coming to this Bill, Even if it is so threatening they have some good points to bring curbs
on H1 Employers who bring them here without actual job, People who are destined to come to
us will come for a better life.
IF Durbin wants to help US he has to make bill which is practical and should address how up
clean up existing mess, This bill is not practical and will definitely face lot of
opposition.
Unfortunately politicians in any country have to take decisions based on how it is going to
gain their party and in terms of votes and later how is it good for the Country, they will
have lot of pressure from various other factors which we don't understand and they don't
understand us.
Their decisions are based on the data they have available with provided by few agencies whom
they trust and closely work with, If they are taking a wrong decision that means either they
don't have complete data or not properly educated. as we are getting affected It becomes our
responsibility to provide them complete data and educate them totally of the situation, so
they make a correct decision and address the issue, and to do that in US affectively we will
need millions of $'s.
For bill to be more practical it should address 500,000 people who are living here for past
several years and who's kids are US Citizens and also own homes. And also American Companies
who are utilizing skills of these people.
If 500,000 contribute 20 $ each we will have 10 Million and we can make ammendments the way
we want it to be.
If 10000 members contribute 100 $ each we will have 1 million which is not bad but this not
practical either.
My final Cut even if this kind bill passes or another bill with more h1's passes we will be
in same situation, the best for us could be this kind of bill with more practicality.
So with our limited resources we will have to do what we can and give all our efforts (Call
your senators) and leave the rest to god.
I tried to mobilize couple of my friends, they are like "No, take it easy this will not
happen" if this is the attitude guys remember you have something in your hands today and if
the bill passes in its current form even if you want to contribute 5000$ to stay in this
country you will not be able to do that as all of us would be packing to go back.
American Corporates so they can hire best resources from all over the world where Americans
are not available, American Corps started taking undue advantage by hiring even if Citizens
were available just because they are getting H1's for lesser price, and showed this
miserable path to desi companies who abused it further.
If the current situation (with out this bill by just adding more h1's) continues not only US
economy will suffer (The number of available right people for any job will be less as hey
would be working for some desi company making 20$ an hour) even H1 aspirants will start
suffering upon Arrival to US and also those who live here will suffer from immense
competition (Just because of the reason that every job posting will be flooded with 1000's
of resumes and only lucky ones get picked you may be best but your resume has to be picked
for an interview call), as the number of jobs are lesser than people coming.
Unlimited H1 may be a solution but it is not practical, If the numbers are available then
desi companies won't bother to file so many applications without actual job, it makes
situation better for new H1's coming to US they will have a job instead to joining a desi
company and sitting on bench for long time(after quitting their job in India)
Coming to this Bill, Even if it is so threatening they have some good points to bring curbs
on H1 Employers who bring them here without actual job, People who are destined to come to
us will come for a better life.
IF Durbin wants to help US he has to make bill which is practical and should address how up
clean up existing mess, This bill is not practical and will definitely face lot of
opposition.
Unfortunately politicians in any country have to take decisions based on how it is going to
gain their party and in terms of votes and later how is it good for the Country, they will
have lot of pressure from various other factors which we don't understand and they don't
understand us.
Their decisions are based on the data they have available with provided by few agencies whom
they trust and closely work with, If they are taking a wrong decision that means either they
don't have complete data or not properly educated. as we are getting affected It becomes our
responsibility to provide them complete data and educate them totally of the situation, so
they make a correct decision and address the issue, and to do that in US affectively we will
need millions of $'s.
For bill to be more practical it should address 500,000 people who are living here for past
several years and who's kids are US Citizens and also own homes. And also American Companies
who are utilizing skills of these people.
If 500,000 contribute 20 $ each we will have 10 Million and we can make ammendments the way
we want it to be.
If 10000 members contribute 100 $ each we will have 1 million which is not bad but this not
practical either.
My final Cut even if this kind bill passes or another bill with more h1's passes we will be
in same situation, the best for us could be this kind of bill with more practicality.
So with our limited resources we will have to do what we can and give all our efforts (Call
your senators) and leave the rest to god.
I tried to mobilize couple of my friends, they are like "No, take it easy this will not
happen" if this is the attitude guys remember you have something in your hands today and if
the bill passes in its current form even if you want to contribute 5000$ to stay in this
country you will not be able to do that as all of us would be packing to go back.
tattoo Rare Lebron Shoes pix
Refugee_New
01-06 04:41 PM
WOW!!!
Can you read how much hate you are spewing in your posts? against jews, against hindus...against anyone who disagrees with the mostly wrong opinion you have. Where do you get your information from by the way? I mean the REAL TRUTH?? Have you been to Gaza?
Read Hamas's charter....it is clearly mentioned in there "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
At the same time read about "Greater Middle East", "Greater Isreal" and "New world Order" , "Unipolar world" etc if you have time.
Can you read how much hate you are spewing in your posts? against jews, against hindus...against anyone who disagrees with the mostly wrong opinion you have. Where do you get your information from by the way? I mean the REAL TRUTH?? Have you been to Gaza?
Read Hamas's charter....it is clearly mentioned in there "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
At the same time read about "Greater Middle East", "Greater Isreal" and "New world Order" , "Unipolar world" etc if you have time.
more...
pictures lebron shoes 2010.
Macaca
08-14 11:27 AM
Convention Party Favors Include Face Time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081301067.html?hpid=topnews) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum Washington Post Staff Writer, August 14, 2007
Congress just completed ethics legislation designed to put distance between lawmakers and the interests that seek favors from them.
But the people in charge of next summer's presidential nominating conventions are busy selling package deals that would put them closer together.
The host committees of 2008's biggest political gatherings are soliciting corporations, wealthy individuals and others with a lot at stake in government decisions for seven-figure payments. In exchange, the givers receive all sorts of goodies, including access to lawmakers and other politicians. The more money the donors spend, the more access they get. Donors also garner valuable publicity for their businesses and the convention's locale, which has its own commercial payoff.
Microsoft and AT&T, to name two, have been high-profile donors to the host committees of previous conventions.
At the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, donors of $5 million or more will receive (among many other things) a private dinner and a separate golf outing with the Republican leadership, according to a list of benefits distributed by the host committee.
At the Democratic convention in Denver, a million-dollar contribution purchases invitations to a series of private events that feature Colorado's governor, Denver's mayor and members of the state's congressional delegation, among other special advantages.
The host committees do not hide their cash-for-access offers; they flaunt them. "As a corporate sponsor, you will be invited to exclusive forums and special events where you will interact with our state's and the nation's government and business leaders," the Democratic solicitation states. "In financial terms, your sponsorship is an investment in the future."
The host committees, which are run by local officials separate from the political parties, collect the tens of millions of dollars needed to put on the extravaganzas, which next year will take place for the Democrats in late August and for the Republicans in early September.
Yet the marketing comes at a sensitive time. Congress just passed -- and President Bush is likely to sign into law soon -- a bill that aims to restrain the amount of influence lobbyists and their clients will have at the conventions.
The legislation aims to stop lobbyists and lobbying groups from paying for lavish parties that honor the lawmakers and the congressional committees they are hired to influence most. Such parties, a staple of the previous conventions, have been criticized by government-reform groups as giving undue clout to interests that have lots of money.
But the bill is silent about other kinds of parties and events, including those put on by the host committees. And those not only will continue but also appear likely to proliferate.
Top givers to the GOP convention are invited to a private reception that will include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Norm Coleman and local mayors. They also will have the right to advertise in prime locations throughout the Twin Cities.
The biggest contributors to the Democratic convention get invitations to all events sponsored by the host committee and special recognition in all host-committee publications.
The nominating conventions, which are held in the late summer before presidential elections, have offered similar benefits packages before. Sponsors are the primary source for the money needed to put on these massive events, which bring together delegates from every state, a who's who of the nation's political establishment and journalists from around the world.
Host committee representatives said they are promoting their cities and are seeking funds from corporations and others who want to make an impression locally and to a large national audience. Acting as a go-between for lawmakers and the interests that want to persuade them is a much more minor concern, they say.
"We're not here to put on a bunch of parties to honor a bunch of individual members" of Congress, said Jeff Larson, interim chairman of the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee. "We want to promote the quality of life we have here in Minnesota."
"We're reaching out to a lot of constituencies, not just members of Congress," said Elbra Wedgeworth, president of the Denver host committee. "We are hoping to promote the Rocky Mountain west."
Washington gadflies, however, see more calculation than that. Easy access to lawmakers and other senior Washington officials, they say, has long been a major attraction of these conventions and will remain so despite the recent legislation.
"It's ironic given that the last thing Congress did before the August break is pass lobbying reform that included a provision limiting the parties that can be thrown at these conventions," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "That would suggest that they didn't mean it, which will really come as a surprise to no one."
Congress just completed ethics legislation designed to put distance between lawmakers and the interests that seek favors from them.
But the people in charge of next summer's presidential nominating conventions are busy selling package deals that would put them closer together.
The host committees of 2008's biggest political gatherings are soliciting corporations, wealthy individuals and others with a lot at stake in government decisions for seven-figure payments. In exchange, the givers receive all sorts of goodies, including access to lawmakers and other politicians. The more money the donors spend, the more access they get. Donors also garner valuable publicity for their businesses and the convention's locale, which has its own commercial payoff.
Microsoft and AT&T, to name two, have been high-profile donors to the host committees of previous conventions.
At the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, donors of $5 million or more will receive (among many other things) a private dinner and a separate golf outing with the Republican leadership, according to a list of benefits distributed by the host committee.
At the Democratic convention in Denver, a million-dollar contribution purchases invitations to a series of private events that feature Colorado's governor, Denver's mayor and members of the state's congressional delegation, among other special advantages.
The host committees do not hide their cash-for-access offers; they flaunt them. "As a corporate sponsor, you will be invited to exclusive forums and special events where you will interact with our state's and the nation's government and business leaders," the Democratic solicitation states. "In financial terms, your sponsorship is an investment in the future."
The host committees, which are run by local officials separate from the political parties, collect the tens of millions of dollars needed to put on the extravaganzas, which next year will take place for the Democrats in late August and for the Republicans in early September.
Yet the marketing comes at a sensitive time. Congress just passed -- and President Bush is likely to sign into law soon -- a bill that aims to restrain the amount of influence lobbyists and their clients will have at the conventions.
The legislation aims to stop lobbyists and lobbying groups from paying for lavish parties that honor the lawmakers and the congressional committees they are hired to influence most. Such parties, a staple of the previous conventions, have been criticized by government-reform groups as giving undue clout to interests that have lots of money.
But the bill is silent about other kinds of parties and events, including those put on by the host committees. And those not only will continue but also appear likely to proliferate.
Top givers to the GOP convention are invited to a private reception that will include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Norm Coleman and local mayors. They also will have the right to advertise in prime locations throughout the Twin Cities.
The biggest contributors to the Democratic convention get invitations to all events sponsored by the host committee and special recognition in all host-committee publications.
The nominating conventions, which are held in the late summer before presidential elections, have offered similar benefits packages before. Sponsors are the primary source for the money needed to put on these massive events, which bring together delegates from every state, a who's who of the nation's political establishment and journalists from around the world.
Host committee representatives said they are promoting their cities and are seeking funds from corporations and others who want to make an impression locally and to a large national audience. Acting as a go-between for lawmakers and the interests that want to persuade them is a much more minor concern, they say.
"We're not here to put on a bunch of parties to honor a bunch of individual members" of Congress, said Jeff Larson, interim chairman of the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee. "We want to promote the quality of life we have here in Minnesota."
"We're reaching out to a lot of constituencies, not just members of Congress," said Elbra Wedgeworth, president of the Denver host committee. "We are hoping to promote the Rocky Mountain west."
Washington gadflies, however, see more calculation than that. Easy access to lawmakers and other senior Washington officials, they say, has long been a major attraction of these conventions and will remain so despite the recent legislation.
"It's ironic given that the last thing Congress did before the August break is pass lobbying reform that included a provision limiting the parties that can be thrown at these conventions," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "That would suggest that they didn't mean it, which will really come as a surprise to no one."
dresses Nike lebron shoes is designed
manub
07-07 07:45 PM
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
more...
makeup More cheap lebron shoes and
DallasBlue
07-08 12:00 AM
I guess a good CPA can be lot of help as well. if your husband doesnt have paystubbs and w2 company/CPA's can actually go back and correct them for mistakes/miscalculations.
girlfriend LeBron lebron shoes 2010.
javadeveloper
08-02 12:35 PM
245k and 245i are two different things.
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
Thanks UN
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
Thanks UN
hairstyles news nike lebron 8 south beach
Macaca
12-30 06:57 PM
A Bridge to a Love for Democracy (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/us/30iht-letter30.html) By RICHARD BERNSTEIN | New York Times
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
desi3933
08-05 03:26 PM
It is not the Law. It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
pappu
07-13 08:28 AM
I commend the initiative. But I see a few issues with it:
You are complaining to DOS about USCIS and DOL. That will not work. Every agency has a specific role
You are complaining to the official who sets visa dates. He has no authority to give relief just because some applicant/s are asking for it. He has to follow the rule every month and his responsibility is only to set the dates based on the statistics received from USCIS. This official has a very specific and limited role.
The reasons are not compelling enough. You cannot just say you are waiting long enough and thus your date should become current. Rules cannot be changed just for that reason.
If economy was down in 2001- 2003 and you were asked to file in EB3 and people in Perm could file in EB2 is your strongest reason, it may not work in your favor. Because by law you can file again and convert to EB2 and port your date. DOL and USCIS does not stop you from doing that.
If you are qualified for EB2 but your attorney and employer filed in EB3, then it is not a fault of USCIS/DOL/DOS. You must talk to the company and the lawyer for it. If the company or the lawyer has broken any rule or employer has exploited you, then the letter should be complain to the appropriate authority about them.
Please also note that labor is filed based on the degree and experience requirement of the job. By law if the requirement is only undergraduate degree for the job, the employer cannot file in EB2 just because the applicant has a masters degree or more experience than needed. So you cannot really put this arguement here because it will be against the rules.
So I personally do not think this idea will work.
While this mess is depressing for EB3 folks, we need to have a more compelling argument, determined membership and effective plan to get things changed.
The root cause of the problem is limited greencard quota for EB3. And the solution is to get recapture, get rid of country limits, STEM exemption. Any single relief itself will be huge for all of us. With 179 phone calls and $16656 collected in last 3 months, I do not see that happening. It will need a far more bigger and determined effort. Such amount can be spent on full scale lobbying in just one month. 179 phone calls are nothing if we have to make a compelling case for ourselves.
You are complaining to DOS about USCIS and DOL. That will not work. Every agency has a specific role
You are complaining to the official who sets visa dates. He has no authority to give relief just because some applicant/s are asking for it. He has to follow the rule every month and his responsibility is only to set the dates based on the statistics received from USCIS. This official has a very specific and limited role.
The reasons are not compelling enough. You cannot just say you are waiting long enough and thus your date should become current. Rules cannot be changed just for that reason.
If economy was down in 2001- 2003 and you were asked to file in EB3 and people in Perm could file in EB2 is your strongest reason, it may not work in your favor. Because by law you can file again and convert to EB2 and port your date. DOL and USCIS does not stop you from doing that.
If you are qualified for EB2 but your attorney and employer filed in EB3, then it is not a fault of USCIS/DOL/DOS. You must talk to the company and the lawyer for it. If the company or the lawyer has broken any rule or employer has exploited you, then the letter should be complain to the appropriate authority about them.
Please also note that labor is filed based on the degree and experience requirement of the job. By law if the requirement is only undergraduate degree for the job, the employer cannot file in EB2 just because the applicant has a masters degree or more experience than needed. So you cannot really put this arguement here because it will be against the rules.
So I personally do not think this idea will work.
While this mess is depressing for EB3 folks, we need to have a more compelling argument, determined membership and effective plan to get things changed.
The root cause of the problem is limited greencard quota for EB3. And the solution is to get recapture, get rid of country limits, STEM exemption. Any single relief itself will be huge for all of us. With 179 phone calls and $16656 collected in last 3 months, I do not see that happening. It will need a far more bigger and determined effort. Such amount can be spent on full scale lobbying in just one month. 179 phone calls are nothing if we have to make a compelling case for ourselves.
