Macaca
05-20 06:21 PM
Diplomatically Insulting the Chinese (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/diplomatically-insulting-the-chinese-5329) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The National Interest
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
wallpaper Meghan McCain#39;s picture
Emerson
04-07 04:55 AM
Durbin Grassley bill was timed to be introduced on April 2nd. It was thought, designed, planned and drafted well in advance before anybody would have known the date or time of when the H visa quota will exhaust. So there is no point in repeatedly saying that this bill is the result of quota finishing on day 1.
It is not a zero sum game that how many H visas Microsoft or Google or Intel got. And highly skilled immigrants working in these companies are not the only genius around. There is a lot of talent on H visa working in other companies. Microsoft is a responsible company and they understand that there just aren’t enough college graduates produced by the US universities. H visa holders contribute towards innovation helping the nation’s economy and they indirectly contributing towards progress even when not directly working for Microsoft or Google or Intel etc.
As administrator mentioned, this bill was being planned by the lobby groups working against H visa program for years. Here is a link dated 1999 showing that people have been working to end H visa program for long time.
http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/articles/miano_testimony.html
This bill is the work of same group of people and it does pose a real threat to H visa program.
H1 quota finished because of many reasons including:
1.) Companies waited for 1 year to hire someone they wanted to hire from outside. Last year also H1 quota did finish in April. So there was a backlog for some companies to hire people with specific talent.
2.) For some companies, green card backlog creates an incentive to hire on H visa. Trends suggest that US worker will most likely leave job with couple of years in IT sector. However, due to green card backlog, H1s cannot leave or change jobs for 6-10 years. This creates an incentive for “some” companies to hire on H visa. Solution to the problem is to fix green card backlog. If companies will know that H visa employee too could get green card in couple of years and could potentially leave, this incentive will get eliminated.
3.) The notion of something being scares creates added demand for it. This is what we are seeing with H visa quota.
This is a good discussion, please contribute to this discussion. I am here to learn.
It is not a zero sum game that how many H visas Microsoft or Google or Intel got. And highly skilled immigrants working in these companies are not the only genius around. There is a lot of talent on H visa working in other companies. Microsoft is a responsible company and they understand that there just aren’t enough college graduates produced by the US universities. H visa holders contribute towards innovation helping the nation’s economy and they indirectly contributing towards progress even when not directly working for Microsoft or Google or Intel etc.
As administrator mentioned, this bill was being planned by the lobby groups working against H visa program for years. Here is a link dated 1999 showing that people have been working to end H visa program for long time.
http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/articles/miano_testimony.html
This bill is the work of same group of people and it does pose a real threat to H visa program.
H1 quota finished because of many reasons including:
1.) Companies waited for 1 year to hire someone they wanted to hire from outside. Last year also H1 quota did finish in April. So there was a backlog for some companies to hire people with specific talent.
2.) For some companies, green card backlog creates an incentive to hire on H visa. Trends suggest that US worker will most likely leave job with couple of years in IT sector. However, due to green card backlog, H1s cannot leave or change jobs for 6-10 years. This creates an incentive for “some” companies to hire on H visa. Solution to the problem is to fix green card backlog. If companies will know that H visa employee too could get green card in couple of years and could potentially leave, this incentive will get eliminated.
3.) The notion of something being scares creates added demand for it. This is what we are seeing with H visa quota.
This is a good discussion, please contribute to this discussion. I am here to learn.
fide_champ
04-06 06:26 AM
Fide_champ,
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
USDReam2Dust,
Even in good school areas the values came down but not as much as 20, 30 or 50%. In my area, houses above 500K are not selling. But i could see multiple bidders for houses that are good and attractively priced(5 to 10%) reduction. We are probably at 2004/2005 prices right now. The most encouraging thing is people are still buying.
I live in south jersey and i know little bit about the south jersey market. I do not know much about other areas. In south jersey moorestown, mount laurel, marlton, voorhees, cherry hill are good areas to buy. Send a PM and we can discuss further about your specific requirements.
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
USDReam2Dust,
Even in good school areas the values came down but not as much as 20, 30 or 50%. In my area, houses above 500K are not selling. But i could see multiple bidders for houses that are good and attractively priced(5 to 10%) reduction. We are probably at 2004/2005 prices right now. The most encouraging thing is people are still buying.
I live in south jersey and i know little bit about the south jersey market. I do not know much about other areas. In south jersey moorestown, mount laurel, marlton, voorhees, cherry hill are good areas to buy. Send a PM and we can discuss further about your specific requirements.
2011 Andy Warhol self-portrait sold
saurav_4096
07-13 10:29 AM
My thougts are, writing letter would not help, It will go to deaf ears. EB3-I status is not hidden to any one DOS/USCIS/DOL, but looks like no one is doing any thing for that.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
more...
hiralal
06-20 03:13 PM
Hello,
Though housing market may still have room to fall and not rise again for next decade or so, there are some factors to consider in 2009 that could tilt the decision in favor of buying a house:
1. Location - If you are not in bad markets like CA, NY, FL but in more stable ones like TX, you should evaluate
2. Taxes - If you've AGI above 300k, buying house is one of the few options left to reduce your tax bill
3. Affordability - If your monthly mortgage, interest and maintenance payments are comparable to current rent amount (as taxes are adjusted during tax filing) and affordable even when you move out of US, buying house should be an option
4. Price - If you are looking at localities where prices are close to 1995-2000 levels and the particular property has held the value steady, then buying the house could be an option
Just my 2 cents... :)
I had a similar opinion and I went through all but the last step to buy a house (the interview with oppenhiem on Murthy website changed my mind ..ofcourse my 4 buyer agents were terribly disappointed... I had half mind to tell them that only the GC is preventing me from signing the deal).
the reason that I backed out is (this is in my case only ..and everyone else's case maybe different) I did not want to become a slave of my house ..i.e. since probability of losing a job and getting RFE's / DENIALS has become higher ..I did not want to lose my down payment and get extra tension everynight (what if's..). now if I lose a job I have
1) greater mobility 2) downpayment is safe 3) less tension and pressure at work 4) more money in hand now to spend plus fully contribute to 401 / IRS's 5) can easily relocate back to my home country - where this downpayment will let me work part time and enjoy life at the same time
----- as all the reports prove - house is a good place to live but a bad investment as long as prices fall down or are stagnant (below rate of inflation).
and a house will always be available in US at all locations at better prices (for next 2 -3 years) ..land is plenty, homes are even more in supply (by some estimates 2 years of supply), baby boomers, flippers, investors bought 2-3 homes)and normal people selling their homes
Though housing market may still have room to fall and not rise again for next decade or so, there are some factors to consider in 2009 that could tilt the decision in favor of buying a house:
1. Location - If you are not in bad markets like CA, NY, FL but in more stable ones like TX, you should evaluate
2. Taxes - If you've AGI above 300k, buying house is one of the few options left to reduce your tax bill
3. Affordability - If your monthly mortgage, interest and maintenance payments are comparable to current rent amount (as taxes are adjusted during tax filing) and affordable even when you move out of US, buying house should be an option
4. Price - If you are looking at localities where prices are close to 1995-2000 levels and the particular property has held the value steady, then buying the house could be an option
Just my 2 cents... :)
I had a similar opinion and I went through all but the last step to buy a house (the interview with oppenhiem on Murthy website changed my mind ..ofcourse my 4 buyer agents were terribly disappointed... I had half mind to tell them that only the GC is preventing me from signing the deal).
the reason that I backed out is (this is in my case only ..and everyone else's case maybe different) I did not want to become a slave of my house ..i.e. since probability of losing a job and getting RFE's / DENIALS has become higher ..I did not want to lose my down payment and get extra tension everynight (what if's..). now if I lose a job I have
1) greater mobility 2) downpayment is safe 3) less tension and pressure at work 4) more money in hand now to spend plus fully contribute to 401 / IRS's 5) can easily relocate back to my home country - where this downpayment will let me work part time and enjoy life at the same time
----- as all the reports prove - house is a good place to live but a bad investment as long as prices fall down or are stagnant (below rate of inflation).
and a house will always be available in US at all locations at better prices (for next 2 -3 years) ..land is plenty, homes are even more in supply (by some estimates 2 years of supply), baby boomers, flippers, investors bought 2-3 homes)and normal people selling their homes
sroyc
08-06 10:41 AM
I'm not a lawyer but I think it'll be hard to prove that A qualifies for EB2 given that he/she does not have a Masters or 5 years of experience in a related field.
Regarding the EB1 spillover - yes, it's a valid question but the fuzziness of the law gives them enough room to interpret it either way.
Okay lets take your example. A & B are graduates with a Bachelors degree (A is a Mechanical and B is Computer Science). A decides to pursue higher study in Mechanical field and B takes up a Software job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school. A joins a software company (His Masters in Mechanical is worth nothing now). EB2 is filed for A just because he has a Masters, B is also eligible for EB2 by that time. Why can't B get a earlier PD? Atleast B got relevant industry experience. How come A is superior than B?
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
Regarding the EB1 spillover - yes, it's a valid question but the fuzziness of the law gives them enough room to interpret it either way.
Okay lets take your example. A & B are graduates with a Bachelors degree (A is a Mechanical and B is Computer Science). A decides to pursue higher study in Mechanical field and B takes up a Software job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school. A joins a software company (His Masters in Mechanical is worth nothing now). EB2 is filed for A just because he has a Masters, B is also eligible for EB2 by that time. Why can't B get a earlier PD? Atleast B got relevant industry experience. How come A is superior than B?
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
more...
gcisadawg
12-27 01:44 AM
Alisa,
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
2010 news-1-meghan-mccain-shades.
krishnam70
03-26 07:59 PM
[QUOTE=unitednations;329983]
Can I PM you or is there any other way. The question has no relation to this current thread but I need some clarification.
- cheers
kris
Can I PM you or is there any other way. The question has no relation to this current thread but I need some clarification.
- cheers
kris
more...
SunnySurya
08-05 01:45 PM
Why, what is difference? Why was labor substitution bad. It was perfectly legal after all.
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s . Not just what their lawyer says ?
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s . Not just what their lawyer says ?
hair makeup Meghan McCain is
hpandey
09-26 09:59 AM
All this is going to happen in the very first year itself. Obama has already said CIR would be his priority for his first year. Dick Durbin and Obama will "reform" the EB system exactly the way you described below. In 2008 we have seen some eb friendly bills introduced by lofgren like visa recapture and exemption for STEM. Once Obama becomes president(which is almost a certainty) he will outsource the EB issues to Dick Durbin and he will make sure none of the EB friendly issues like visa recapture and exemption for STEM will happen. In addition obama and durbin will make our lives miserable with draconian restrictions on EB. We are alreday seeing USCIS denying AC21 485 (there is a seperate thread on this). If situation is like this now just imagine how horrible it would be with Obama and durbin.
Last time the CIR bill died because a lot of people are against granting amnesty to illegal immigrants ( both Republicans and democrats ) . The president alone ( read Obama ) cannot decide that he wants to pass this bill because remember last year Bush was strongly in favour of the CIR bill and even had a conference with Senate leaders to push it through but it failed . The politicians know that the American people don't like the bill but they have to show that they are concerned with solving the illegal immigrant issue. This CIR bill is only a political gimmick. It came into picture because of the upcoming elections and next year I am pretty sure with no more elections the interest would not be that much to get it passed ( although I am sure there will be a lot of people interested in getting it to the House and the Senate ).
As someone said before if they try to bring some anti - highly skilled workers bill then the big companies are sure to cry out loud ( Microsoft , Cisco , Oracle etc etc ) and the politicians don't listen to us but they will surely listen to them. They have got the clout to get themselves heard.
Last time the CIR bill died because a lot of people are against granting amnesty to illegal immigrants ( both Republicans and democrats ) . The president alone ( read Obama ) cannot decide that he wants to pass this bill because remember last year Bush was strongly in favour of the CIR bill and even had a conference with Senate leaders to push it through but it failed . The politicians know that the American people don't like the bill but they have to show that they are concerned with solving the illegal immigrant issue. This CIR bill is only a political gimmick. It came into picture because of the upcoming elections and next year I am pretty sure with no more elections the interest would not be that much to get it passed ( although I am sure there will be a lot of people interested in getting it to the House and the Senate ).
As someone said before if they try to bring some anti - highly skilled workers bill then the big companies are sure to cry out loud ( Microsoft , Cisco , Oracle etc etc ) and the politicians don't listen to us but they will surely listen to them. They have got the clout to get themselves heard.
more...
vactorboy29
08-26 10:34 PM
This is hilarious........
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
hot meghan mccain warhol. painted
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
more...
house Dear Meghan McCain: I think
Refugee_New
01-06 05:41 PM
Oh! you were so saddened and shocked about the killings happening far way!
And you condemned the killings of innocent people in Mumbai by Pak terrorists (Though I checked and didn’t see any post from you in that thread)
Where you shocked when religious fanatics attacked and killed poor tribals in Orissa? The government itself accepted that 50,000 people fled the villages to forest? Even nuns were raped. These are not reported by CNN/Fox, but by all mainstream news media in India.
OR you get shock only when people of your faith are involved, ONLY when they get killed (and NOT when they go on a killing spree)?
I get shocked only when the world watches the massacre silently and doesn't stop the killing. By the way you couldn't find my post because "Mumbai attacked" thread was deleted by moderator after several weeks of discussion and racial insults.
And you condemned the killings of innocent people in Mumbai by Pak terrorists (Though I checked and didn’t see any post from you in that thread)
Where you shocked when religious fanatics attacked and killed poor tribals in Orissa? The government itself accepted that 50,000 people fled the villages to forest? Even nuns were raped. These are not reported by CNN/Fox, but by all mainstream news media in India.
OR you get shock only when people of your faith are involved, ONLY when they get killed (and NOT when they go on a killing spree)?
I get shocked only when the world watches the massacre silently and doesn't stop the killing. By the way you couldn't find my post because "Mumbai attacked" thread was deleted by moderator after several weeks of discussion and racial insults.
tattoo meghan mccain. Meghan McCain .
sands
08-07 05:25 PM
A couple drove down a country road for several miles, not saying a word.
An earlier discussion had led to an argument and neither of them wanted to concede their position. As they passed a barnyard of mules, goats, and pigs, the husband asked sarcastically, "Relatives of yours?"
"Yep," the wife replied, "in-laws."
This is hilarious! :)
An earlier discussion had led to an argument and neither of them wanted to concede their position. As they passed a barnyard of mules, goats, and pigs, the husband asked sarcastically, "Relatives of yours?"
"Yep," the wife replied, "in-laws."
This is hilarious! :)
more...
pictures A Meghan McCain LOL
mariner5555
04-14 02:16 PM
I cannot agree more. I have been trying to drill this into some peoples brain but they are so adamant on renting and has made this thread into a rent vs buy argument. I finally gave up. I am not saying that this is the right time to buy. Fast forward 2 or 2+ years, lets assume the market is good. Then when it comes to rent vs buy I advocate buying a house.
Let�s say you have a small kid and you are living in an apartment, after 10 years you save enough money to buy a big house and you then eventually you buy it. Then you ask the your kid �do you like the house?�. He will reply �it�s very nice dad, but can you give you give my childhood now?.�. Go figure out guys. If you are not planning on going back for a very long time then at-least get a life in the country you reside and when the housing market is good.
wow you come back to the same argument again ..and you tell others. maybe you should ask your child ..would you prefer that I spend more time with you or is it o.k if I see you only on weekends.
you are saying the others are not understanding your point ..but at the same time you are not understanding the other side of argument.
basically you are equating a bigger house means better childhood ..which is plain wrong. maybe your case or for few lucky people that maybe the case ..but I suspect for 99 percent of people ..maintaining and buying homes means they have to slog harder and that means less time for kids !!
Let�s say you have a small kid and you are living in an apartment, after 10 years you save enough money to buy a big house and you then eventually you buy it. Then you ask the your kid �do you like the house?�. He will reply �it�s very nice dad, but can you give you give my childhood now?.�. Go figure out guys. If you are not planning on going back for a very long time then at-least get a life in the country you reside and when the housing market is good.
wow you come back to the same argument again ..and you tell others. maybe you should ask your child ..would you prefer that I spend more time with you or is it o.k if I see you only on weekends.
you are saying the others are not understanding your point ..but at the same time you are not understanding the other side of argument.
basically you are equating a bigger house means better childhood ..which is plain wrong. maybe your case or for few lucky people that maybe the case ..but I suspect for 99 percent of people ..maintaining and buying homes means they have to slog harder and that means less time for kids !!
dresses hot Meghan McCain#39;s meghan
pappu
06-07 12:06 PM
There is some excellent information on this thread. Pls add it on http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php?title=Buying_a_house_in_USA&action=edit
as well
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Immigration_to_US
There are some new Miscellaneous topics created in the wiki. Please help us by adding content in those titles as well so that this valuable information helps everyone. Do add links to relevant IV threads wherever possible.
as well
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Immigration_to_US
There are some new Miscellaneous topics created in the wiki. Please help us by adding content in those titles as well so that this valuable information helps everyone. Do add links to relevant IV threads wherever possible.
more...
makeup McCain considered deleting her
gc28262
03-24 03:16 PM
I was one of you and I mainly deal with many of you guys. Unfortunately, people want to come into this country in many different ways and just because we want to; doesn't mean they are going to let us.
btw; see --------------------------------for my comments.
UN,
I can't help asking this.
I have been following your posts for a while. I know you are quite knowledgeable in immigration.
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
I like to believe you are unbiased. Please let us know.
btw; see --------------------------------for my comments.
UN,
I can't help asking this.
I have been following your posts for a while. I know you are quite knowledgeable in immigration.
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
I like to believe you are unbiased. Please let us know.
girlfriend tattoo Meghan McCain#39;s cups
Refugee_New
01-06 12:57 PM
And look at what India is going thru. Each and every year, bomb blasts in multiple cities.
There are hundreds of polls taken in Indian cities and a majority of the people living in cities say that they are terrified. They are constantly living under the fear of the next terrorist attack.
I am not justifying anything, I am just saying that Israel does not love to go and kill innocent people, they are not the Stalin or the Nazi clansmen.
Or are you saying that they love killing people?
If they do not love to go and kill innocent people, then what are you seeing in the world? Are you blind to see the massacre commited against people or you are so afraid to speak the truth?
There are hundreds of polls taken in Indian cities and a majority of the people living in cities say that they are terrified. They are constantly living under the fear of the next terrorist attack.
I am not justifying anything, I am just saying that Israel does not love to go and kill innocent people, they are not the Stalin or the Nazi clansmen.
Or are you saying that they love killing people?
If they do not love to go and kill innocent people, then what are you seeing in the world? Are you blind to see the massacre commited against people or you are so afraid to speak the truth?
hairstyles girlfriend Meghan McCain Slams
desi3933
08-05 10:53 AM
Why should they?
So, you don't believe in helping others.
So, you don't believe in helping others.
Macaca
05-30 05:36 PM
Visa Case Lawyer Reveals Infosys Tactics (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/30/visa-case-lawyer-reveals-infosys-tactics/) By Amol Sharma and Megha Bahree | IndiaRealTime
The lawyer for the U.S. employee of Infosys Technologies Ltd. who is alleging in a civil suit that his employer engaged in visa fraud and then tried to cover it up shared some details about the Indian outsourcing firm�s response to the suit so far.
The lawsuit was filed in February in Circuit Court in Alabama and has sparked a high-stakes criminal probe of Infosys by U.S. federal investigators.
Infosys doesn�t want a jury trial in the civil case and is pressing for arbitration, a mechanism in the U.S. system whereby a neutral third party resolves a dispute, according to Kenny Mendelsohn, a lawyer for Mr. Palmer. A federal judge will decide that matter.
Mr. Mendelsohn, who emailed India Real Time a status update on the case, suggested that Mr. Palmer�s work laptop�which he says contains documents that would substantiate the claim of visa violations�has become a crucial piece of evidence in the case.
He says Infosys tried to get the laptop back after Mr. Palmer started cooperating several months ago with U.S. authorities, who took interest in the case.
�When Infosys learned that Mr. Palmer was cooperating with the Investigators, it demanded that he turn the laptop over to Infosys and threatened to fire him if he did not,� Mr. Mendelsohn wrote in the email. �However, Mr. Palmer on my advice opted to secure the laptop and the Investigators now have it.�
Infosys said it was only following the law in seeking access to the computer after Mr. Mendelsohn filed his suit.
�The notion that in this instance we have attempted to do anything inappropriate with respect to a company issued computer maintained by an employee is simply not accurate. In any context in which the company is involved in litigation or is otherwise required to preserve documents and electronic records, the law requires us to both secure and maintain copies of those records,� said the firm in an emailed statement. �That is precisely the practice that any company would follow in this situation and it is precisely what we have attempted to do here.�
Infosys did not comment on the question of seeking arbitration or on Mr. Palmer�s present work status with the company.
Mr. Palmer still works at Infosys but is �on the bench,� which means he is drawing a salary but isn�t staffed on any projects and is sitting at home, according to his lawyer.
�He is not doing any work, but has continually contacted Infosys requesting another assignment,� Mr. Mendelsohn wrote. �Even though Mr. Palmer has received information that there are numerous positions available that could use him, Infosys still has not sent him to another assignment.�
Fixing Congress (http://bostonreview.net/BR36.3/ndf_jim_cooper_fixing_congress.php) By Jim Cooper | Boston Review
Coaching and Much More for Chinese Students Looking to U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/global/30college.html) By DAN LEVIN | The New York Times
Is multiculturalism in Europe dead? (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-245422-is-multiculturalism-in-europe-dead.html) By Amanda Paul | Sunday's Zaman
A Crackdown on Employing Illegal Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html) By JULIA PRESTON | The New York Times
Trust but E-Verify (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/opinion/30douthat.html) By ROSS DOUTHAT | The New York Times
Justices� Arizona Ruling on Illegal Immigration May Embolden States (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/us/politics/28immigration.html) By JULIA PRESTON | The New York Times
How the Other Half Lives, Still (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/opinion/27fri3.html) The New York Times Editorial
High court lets Arizona usurp federal role on immigration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/high-court-lets-arizona-usurp-federal-role-on-immigration/2011/05/26/AGqXlyCH_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Immigrant-Law Ruling Irks Some Businesses (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576349834244083052.html) By MIRIAM JORDAN And DANNY YADRON | Wall Street Journal
The lawyer for the U.S. employee of Infosys Technologies Ltd. who is alleging in a civil suit that his employer engaged in visa fraud and then tried to cover it up shared some details about the Indian outsourcing firm�s response to the suit so far.
The lawsuit was filed in February in Circuit Court in Alabama and has sparked a high-stakes criminal probe of Infosys by U.S. federal investigators.
Infosys doesn�t want a jury trial in the civil case and is pressing for arbitration, a mechanism in the U.S. system whereby a neutral third party resolves a dispute, according to Kenny Mendelsohn, a lawyer for Mr. Palmer. A federal judge will decide that matter.
Mr. Mendelsohn, who emailed India Real Time a status update on the case, suggested that Mr. Palmer�s work laptop�which he says contains documents that would substantiate the claim of visa violations�has become a crucial piece of evidence in the case.
He says Infosys tried to get the laptop back after Mr. Palmer started cooperating several months ago with U.S. authorities, who took interest in the case.
�When Infosys learned that Mr. Palmer was cooperating with the Investigators, it demanded that he turn the laptop over to Infosys and threatened to fire him if he did not,� Mr. Mendelsohn wrote in the email. �However, Mr. Palmer on my advice opted to secure the laptop and the Investigators now have it.�
Infosys said it was only following the law in seeking access to the computer after Mr. Mendelsohn filed his suit.
�The notion that in this instance we have attempted to do anything inappropriate with respect to a company issued computer maintained by an employee is simply not accurate. In any context in which the company is involved in litigation or is otherwise required to preserve documents and electronic records, the law requires us to both secure and maintain copies of those records,� said the firm in an emailed statement. �That is precisely the practice that any company would follow in this situation and it is precisely what we have attempted to do here.�
Infosys did not comment on the question of seeking arbitration or on Mr. Palmer�s present work status with the company.
Mr. Palmer still works at Infosys but is �on the bench,� which means he is drawing a salary but isn�t staffed on any projects and is sitting at home, according to his lawyer.
�He is not doing any work, but has continually contacted Infosys requesting another assignment,� Mr. Mendelsohn wrote. �Even though Mr. Palmer has received information that there are numerous positions available that could use him, Infosys still has not sent him to another assignment.�
Fixing Congress (http://bostonreview.net/BR36.3/ndf_jim_cooper_fixing_congress.php) By Jim Cooper | Boston Review
Coaching and Much More for Chinese Students Looking to U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/global/30college.html) By DAN LEVIN | The New York Times
Is multiculturalism in Europe dead? (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-245422-is-multiculturalism-in-europe-dead.html) By Amanda Paul | Sunday's Zaman
A Crackdown on Employing Illegal Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html) By JULIA PRESTON | The New York Times
Trust but E-Verify (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/opinion/30douthat.html) By ROSS DOUTHAT | The New York Times
Justices� Arizona Ruling on Illegal Immigration May Embolden States (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/us/politics/28immigration.html) By JULIA PRESTON | The New York Times
How the Other Half Lives, Still (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/opinion/27fri3.html) The New York Times Editorial
High court lets Arizona usurp federal role on immigration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/high-court-lets-arizona-usurp-federal-role-on-immigration/2011/05/26/AGqXlyCH_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Immigrant-Law Ruling Irks Some Businesses (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576349834244083052.html) By MIRIAM JORDAN And DANNY YADRON | Wall Street Journal
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
