bkarnik
08-11 01:59 PM
A man met a beautiful blonde lady and decided he wanted to marry her right away.
She said, 'But we don't know anything about each other.'
He said, 'That's all right, we'll learn about each other as we go along.'
So she consented, they were married, and off they went on a honeymoon at a very nice resort.
One morning they were lying by the pool, when he got up off of his towel, climbed up to the 10 meter board and did a two and a half tuck, followed by three rotations in the pike position, at which point he straightened out and cut the water like a knife.
After a few more demonstrations, he came back and lay down on the towel.
She said, 'That was incredible!'
He said, 'I used to be an Olympic diving champion. You see, I told you we'd learn more about each other as we went along.'
So she got up, jumped in the pool and started doing lengths.
After seventy -five lengths she climbed out of the pool, lay down on her towel, and was hardly out of breath.
He said, 'That was incredible! Were you an Olympic endurance swimmer?'
'No,' she said, 'I was a prostitute in Memphis but I worked both sides of the Mississippi .
She said, 'But we don't know anything about each other.'
He said, 'That's all right, we'll learn about each other as we go along.'
So she consented, they were married, and off they went on a honeymoon at a very nice resort.
One morning they were lying by the pool, when he got up off of his towel, climbed up to the 10 meter board and did a two and a half tuck, followed by three rotations in the pike position, at which point he straightened out and cut the water like a knife.
After a few more demonstrations, he came back and lay down on the towel.
She said, 'That was incredible!'
He said, 'I used to be an Olympic diving champion. You see, I told you we'd learn more about each other as we went along.'
So she got up, jumped in the pool and started doing lengths.
After seventy -five lengths she climbed out of the pool, lay down on her towel, and was hardly out of breath.
He said, 'That was incredible! Were you an Olympic endurance swimmer?'
'No,' she said, 'I was a prostitute in Memphis but I worked both sides of the Mississippi .
wallpaper Paul McDonald dating
javadeveloper
08-02 12:11 PM
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
245(i)/245(K) covers only upto 180 days(6 months) of out of status , the possible OOS issues are
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
245(i)/245(K) covers only upto 180 days(6 months) of out of status , the possible OOS issues are
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
sabudanawada
04-15 02:49 PM
Some common thinking patterns that immerge out of these conversations. Please understands that these are all "amoral" paradigms, nothing else, you can pick and choose any of these set of values and lead your life on it, the choice is upto you. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong, except in their own imagination.
1. Money cant buy happiness
2. Bigger home doesnt mean better life for kids.
3. Life in US is better than life in India
4. Life in India is better than life in US.
5. Our parents had more time for us than we do for our children
6. It is better to be content and happy than to be materialistic and unhappy.
7. Stability is more important than commiting a big chunk of your money.
8. Good neighborhoods is whats more important.
9. Renting is good for immigrants till they get their green cards.
10.Buying house in this market is stupid.
11. Buying house in this market is smart.
12. I already bought the house and loving it
13. Wait till they kick you out of the country, then tell me that you love your house. you know they sometimes make some stupid mistakes with your application and there is no telling whether you could be their victim even if you have cleanest case for GC.
i can go on, but come on guys, dont you get it? Who wins with these arguments. NOBODY. Do what you think is right for you and your family. as simple as that...
Cheers! :cool:
1. Money cant buy happiness
2. Bigger home doesnt mean better life for kids.
3. Life in US is better than life in India
4. Life in India is better than life in US.
5. Our parents had more time for us than we do for our children
6. It is better to be content and happy than to be materialistic and unhappy.
7. Stability is more important than commiting a big chunk of your money.
8. Good neighborhoods is whats more important.
9. Renting is good for immigrants till they get their green cards.
10.Buying house in this market is stupid.
11. Buying house in this market is smart.
12. I already bought the house and loving it
13. Wait till they kick you out of the country, then tell me that you love your house. you know they sometimes make some stupid mistakes with your application and there is no telling whether you could be their victim even if you have cleanest case for GC.
i can go on, but come on guys, dont you get it? Who wins with these arguments. NOBODY. Do what you think is right for you and your family. as simple as that...
Cheers! :cool:
2011 American Idol? heartthrob Paul
Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
more...
araj_98
05-25 12:45 PM
retrogression is there was no unified voice to atleast speak out, when the serious problems that the legal immigrants are facing was anticipated, write about these issues. Now we have one in IV.
The only problem in what you advocate is this: while each of us is free to speak as we like, that dilutes our focus and produces a gaggle of voices. This results in lack of attention and gradual erosion of the effort. We don't have a full time paid director / administrators to brings things to order. All work here is at IV is voluntary. That's why we need to stop people from promoting Lou Dobbs. Remember, one swallow doen't make a summer.
Also remember: these channels have (or may have) an hidden agenda. Rather than pure news and opinion disseminating channels, they are jockeying to be a opinion influencing channel. That's where they fail; when they can't convince people (how can you, in a few minutes of news coverage), they confuse poeple.
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/709/yls_article.htm
February 23, 2006
Watch Video of Author Tom Friedman's Lecture
Please note: You will need Quicktime 7 to view this video.
BTW People who support Lou and his view are as ignorant and xenophobic as he is.
Communique - Your posts dont suggest that you are an immigrant or even pro-immigrant.
The only problem in what you advocate is this: while each of us is free to speak as we like, that dilutes our focus and produces a gaggle of voices. This results in lack of attention and gradual erosion of the effort. We don't have a full time paid director / administrators to brings things to order. All work here is at IV is voluntary. That's why we need to stop people from promoting Lou Dobbs. Remember, one swallow doen't make a summer.
Also remember: these channels have (or may have) an hidden agenda. Rather than pure news and opinion disseminating channels, they are jockeying to be a opinion influencing channel. That's where they fail; when they can't convince people (how can you, in a few minutes of news coverage), they confuse poeple.
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/709/yls_article.htm
February 23, 2006
Watch Video of Author Tom Friedman's Lecture
Please note: You will need Quicktime 7 to view this video.
BTW People who support Lou and his view are as ignorant and xenophobic as he is.
Communique - Your posts dont suggest that you are an immigrant or even pro-immigrant.
gaz
01-10 06:48 AM
Killing of innocents is always terrible. Even more so when it is children.
Hamas has been holding Palestinians hostage - and now Israel, the cop, doesn't care if the hostage is affected in the fight.
Israel is fully justified in defending its people, but should at least spare shooting independent parties like the Red Cross etc who are
helping the wounded in Gaza.
"when Elephants fight, its the grass that suffers."
I am not sure why Islamic Fanatics become victims when they are attacked. Israel is 101% right in defending their territory from Palestine terror attacks. My home country is gonig through the same problem but my government won't do anything.
Similar example of Pakistan becoming a victim of terror when actually it is a factory of terror and 100% of it s population supports terror in one form or another.
Don't fire rockets if u fear trouble. Civilized world ( US,UK.Israel,India) need to come together and get a gameplan to weed out this trouble.
When those terrorists kill innocents, Islamic fanatics go silent. They only wake up when their terrorist brothers are killed.
So collateral is always in play.
:D
Hamas has been holding Palestinians hostage - and now Israel, the cop, doesn't care if the hostage is affected in the fight.
Israel is fully justified in defending its people, but should at least spare shooting independent parties like the Red Cross etc who are
helping the wounded in Gaza.
"when Elephants fight, its the grass that suffers."
I am not sure why Islamic Fanatics become victims when they are attacked. Israel is 101% right in defending their territory from Palestine terror attacks. My home country is gonig through the same problem but my government won't do anything.
Similar example of Pakistan becoming a victim of terror when actually it is a factory of terror and 100% of it s population supports terror in one form or another.
Don't fire rockets if u fear trouble. Civilized world ( US,UK.Israel,India) need to come together and get a gameplan to weed out this trouble.
When those terrorists kill innocents, Islamic fanatics go silent. They only wake up when their terrorist brothers are killed.
So collateral is always in play.
:D
more...
vghc
01-07 01:49 PM
All Muslims are NOT terrorists, but 99.9% terrorists ARE muslims.
2010 Paul McDonald might have been
GCNaseeb
08-02 04:00 PM
Welcome back and Thanks very much for your valuable suggestions.
I have an important question for you and would request your suggestion:
Here's my situation: I am working for my current employer from last 6 years. My I-485 has been filed last week through my employer's attorney. My EB3 I-140 approved and I am on 9th year of h1-B. My H1-B expires in January next year. I have 3 other dependants on H4.
Now my current employer is trying to either fire me off or reduce my work hours to about 8 hrs / week.
What would be my best option to take decision?
1. Should I :
a. Stay home untill the expiry of 6 months and invoke AC21 after that? or
b. transfer my H1-B to some other employer and start working on H1-B and just wait for 6 months to invoke AC21?
2. Can my current employer reduce my hours legally? Meaning if they have to alter my H1-B to 8 hrs per week what will happen to my H1-B? Can i still able to transfer my H1-B to new emploer to work for 40Hrs/week if I want to?
The problem is- if they can't reduce my hours legally, I may be fired. And, if I get fired, they will revoke my H1-B on the same day but won't revoke my I-140 untill 6 months.
What do you suggest to help both me and my employer?
Thanks a lot for your valuabale suggestion and helping me out.
I have an important question for you and would request your suggestion:
Here's my situation: I am working for my current employer from last 6 years. My I-485 has been filed last week through my employer's attorney. My EB3 I-140 approved and I am on 9th year of h1-B. My H1-B expires in January next year. I have 3 other dependants on H4.
Now my current employer is trying to either fire me off or reduce my work hours to about 8 hrs / week.
What would be my best option to take decision?
1. Should I :
a. Stay home untill the expiry of 6 months and invoke AC21 after that? or
b. transfer my H1-B to some other employer and start working on H1-B and just wait for 6 months to invoke AC21?
2. Can my current employer reduce my hours legally? Meaning if they have to alter my H1-B to 8 hrs per week what will happen to my H1-B? Can i still able to transfer my H1-B to new emploer to work for 40Hrs/week if I want to?
The problem is- if they can't reduce my hours legally, I may be fired. And, if I get fired, they will revoke my H1-B on the same day but won't revoke my I-140 untill 6 months.
What do you suggest to help both me and my employer?
Thanks a lot for your valuabale suggestion and helping me out.
more...
NolaIndian32
09-28 07:58 PM
I agree 100% with the quote below; if Durbin gets his way, there will be no light at the end of the tunnel for the EB community.
I have been in the US, legally for 14+ years. I have stayed within the law, regulations to get my green card, but still after 8 years in this antiquated and dysfunctional process, I am "in queue". Twice I have had to turn down promotions to executive level within my organization because of restrictions of "same to similar" regulation. Even my CEO is frustrated with this situation. If Durbin has his way, I can no longer afford to put my life on hold. I will be forced to sell my house and relocate to Canada.
McCain supports immigration for legally employed immigrants. I pray that he wins the election this November.
After 8 yrs of Bush, I sure am ready for Democrats to take over. America needs a change. But Sen. Obama's victory will surely spell doom and gloom for the EB community - of which I am one.
I have been in the United States for 9 years - LEGALLY. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. My kids are American Citizens. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy. We even bought a house here in the hope that we can settle down in America. Me and my husband hold executive level positions in major multinationals. Here is the absolute kicker - I work in Satellite Telecommunications and my company supports the United States Government (DoD) and its contractors/ sub contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan!!
We wanted Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke us up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for us EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community forced us to secure the Canadian PR. We have a little bit more time to decide when we want to move there before our PR expires. If things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, we will move to Canada. I just dread having to sell the house here though!!
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against teh EB community. My question to Sen.Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
I have been in the US, legally for 14+ years. I have stayed within the law, regulations to get my green card, but still after 8 years in this antiquated and dysfunctional process, I am "in queue". Twice I have had to turn down promotions to executive level within my organization because of restrictions of "same to similar" regulation. Even my CEO is frustrated with this situation. If Durbin has his way, I can no longer afford to put my life on hold. I will be forced to sell my house and relocate to Canada.
McCain supports immigration for legally employed immigrants. I pray that he wins the election this November.
After 8 yrs of Bush, I sure am ready for Democrats to take over. America needs a change. But Sen. Obama's victory will surely spell doom and gloom for the EB community - of which I am one.
I have been in the United States for 9 years - LEGALLY. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. My kids are American Citizens. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy. We even bought a house here in the hope that we can settle down in America. Me and my husband hold executive level positions in major multinationals. Here is the absolute kicker - I work in Satellite Telecommunications and my company supports the United States Government (DoD) and its contractors/ sub contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan!!
We wanted Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke us up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for us EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community forced us to secure the Canadian PR. We have a little bit more time to decide when we want to move there before our PR expires. If things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, we will move to Canada. I just dread having to sell the house here though!!
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against teh EB community. My question to Sen.Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
hair Paul McDonald dating
GC_US_64
12-26 04:29 PM
Kudlow and company are airing a debate on Lou Dobbs Goofy economics and skewed numbers at 5pm eastern time.
more...
gc_chahiye
08-02 06:44 PM
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
this is interesting: If I invoke AC21, and get a letter from a new employer, they can still ask me for a letter from old employer saying they intended to hire me?? The fact that they submitted a future employment letter with my 485 and did not revoke the approved I-140 for 6 months not enough to prove that the intent remained at the end of 6 months?
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
this is interesting: If I invoke AC21, and get a letter from a new employer, they can still ask me for a letter from old employer saying they intended to hire me?? The fact that they submitted a future employment letter with my 485 and did not revoke the approved I-140 for 6 months not enough to prove that the intent remained at the end of 6 months?
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
hot Newly eliminated American Idol
GCBatman
01-06 12:58 PM
Got a red with following comment
"hey stop acting like a policeman you desperate immigrant.. think beyond your GC"
I want to tell this anonymous fella that yes I am desperate immigrant & have been waiting for my GC from last 8 years that's why I am on this form & if you want to post this issue post it on relevant site not here FORM IS ONLY FOR EB RELATED ISSUES.
Discussion of non EB related issues should be stopped.
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
"hey stop acting like a policeman you desperate immigrant.. think beyond your GC"
I want to tell this anonymous fella that yes I am desperate immigrant & have been waiting for my GC from last 8 years that's why I am on this form & if you want to post this issue post it on relevant site not here FORM IS ONLY FOR EB RELATED ISSUES.
Discussion of non EB related issues should be stopped.
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
more...
house Idol#39;s#39; Paul McDonald
soni7007
08-06 04:01 PM
Yes, i agree that it is unpredictable and no one can guarantee as to which one will move faster.
But, it can go either way, may be 2002 EB3 goes current before 2005 Eb2 or vice-versa. Atleast they will have an equal chance and position. However, in the other case, when u allow porting, then A (EB3, PD 2002) will be strictly ahead of B (EB2, PD 2005)
According to you A acquires skills over a period of time and so does a person who went for higher education and is EB2. You also say that if there was no porting, A has a PD of 2002 (in EB3) and B has a PD of 2005 (in EB2), then they are almost in the same position.
At this point both of us agree that A and B are equal, right?
If they both are EQUAL, then can you guarantee that both PDs will move at the same rate?. If A�s PD becomes unavailable and B�s become current. B will get GC faster than A even though both were equal (from your logic). Is this fair, then?
But, it can go either way, may be 2002 EB3 goes current before 2005 Eb2 or vice-versa. Atleast they will have an equal chance and position. However, in the other case, when u allow porting, then A (EB3, PD 2002) will be strictly ahead of B (EB2, PD 2005)
According to you A acquires skills over a period of time and so does a person who went for higher education and is EB2. You also say that if there was no porting, A has a PD of 2002 (in EB3) and B has a PD of 2005 (in EB2), then they are almost in the same position.
At this point both of us agree that A and B are equal, right?
If they both are EQUAL, then can you guarantee that both PDs will move at the same rate?. If A�s PD becomes unavailable and B�s become current. B will get GC faster than A even though both were equal (from your logic). Is this fair, then?
tattoo Paul McDonald, American
gc4me
08-05 11:07 AM
C'mon Mrs. or Miss Rolling_Flood, post you qualification here. (honesty please! :D)
Mrs. Rolling_Flood,
Post you qualification here.
You can see flood of post from EB3 folks who has superior qualification (education wise as well as experience) compare to you. Either you are out of your mind from rigorous GC fever or a one eyed person with poor imagination or simply you did not get a chance to work in a big environment like fortune 10 or may be fortune 100 companies. Or else you would know how/why/when a company files under EB3 despite the fact that the candidate has more than required qualification for EB2. Position requirement, layoffs, HR policies, Company�s Attorney Firm�s policy etc. comes to picture when a big organization files LC/GC for a candidate.
I guess you are like me working with a small deshi consulting firm with 3 or 4 consultants (working C2C). They can make almost anyone eligible (on the paper) for EB2.
Then ask me why I am not EB2? According to my company's attorney, I-140 will be rejected due to the stand of
company's financials.
Mrs. Rolling_Flood,
Post you qualification here.
You can see flood of post from EB3 folks who has superior qualification (education wise as well as experience) compare to you. Either you are out of your mind from rigorous GC fever or a one eyed person with poor imagination or simply you did not get a chance to work in a big environment like fortune 10 or may be fortune 100 companies. Or else you would know how/why/when a company files under EB3 despite the fact that the candidate has more than required qualification for EB2. Position requirement, layoffs, HR policies, Company�s Attorney Firm�s policy etc. comes to picture when a big organization files LC/GC for a candidate.
I guess you are like me working with a small deshi consulting firm with 3 or 4 consultants (working C2C). They can make almost anyone eligible (on the paper) for EB2.
Then ask me why I am not EB2? According to my company's attorney, I-140 will be rejected due to the stand of
company's financials.
more...
pictures Paul McDonald Nikki Reed
raysaikat
07-13 11:23 AM
Who has the authority to set the spillover mode ? (Vertical vs Horizonal)
I read in some immigration forum that USCIS/DOS has switched between these at will in the past.
No one, actually. It is supposed to be set by the law (congress), but apparently the law is not clear about the exact steps. So USCIS "interprets" the law to supply the missing details. In this case, by consultation with congress (administration? House/Senate officials?) and reading the "intent" of the law more carefully, they have arrived at the conclusion that the spill-over visas must go in the horizontal direction.
The current interpretation is the sensible one, IMHO, if the word "preference" is to mean anything.
I read in some immigration forum that USCIS/DOS has switched between these at will in the past.
No one, actually. It is supposed to be set by the law (congress), but apparently the law is not clear about the exact steps. So USCIS "interprets" the law to supply the missing details. In this case, by consultation with congress (administration? House/Senate officials?) and reading the "intent" of the law more carefully, they have arrived at the conclusion that the spill-over visas must go in the horizontal direction.
The current interpretation is the sensible one, IMHO, if the word "preference" is to mean anything.
dresses His AMERICAN IDOL: Paul
h1techSlave
04-07 03:19 PM
In early 2000 when the stock market was going crazy, every pundit worth his salt was proclaiming at the top of their voice to buy stock. And then the whole thing collapsed.
In the same time period, not many experts recommend buying a house. I remember in 2002 a community near my work was selling town homes for around 200,000 and there were no buyers. Today (after correction) those same houses are still selling at around 450,000.
I 100% agree with you that this is a good time to buy. I know many people are saying that the market would crash another 20%. But the fact is that you can negotiate 10-15% from the advertised price. And there are enough homes in the bank-repo and short sale categories where the prices are 20-30% below the price mentioned in zillow.
Having owned a town home for the last 2.5 years, I can very confidently say that the yard work and house cleaning etc. etc. are not such a big deal. Actually we mow our lawn with a manual push mower (may not be practical if you have more than 10 cents to mow) and clean the snow using a $10 snow shovel. Who said a little exercise is bad for you? I have also helped my single family friends in their yard work and never thought working outside is such a bad thing.
But there is a risk. And house is big ticket item, you have move cautiously.
I firmly believe in the Contrarian Theory. When speculators run, its time to get in and BUY. I owned two homes and I am in the process to getting a third one. I would be a good candidate for those TV shows on HGTv/TLC. I buy a home build equity(through appreciation) and flip. This will get me closer to my DREAM home. I cannot see myself in a home for more than 5 years.
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
In the same time period, not many experts recommend buying a house. I remember in 2002 a community near my work was selling town homes for around 200,000 and there were no buyers. Today (after correction) those same houses are still selling at around 450,000.
I 100% agree with you that this is a good time to buy. I know many people are saying that the market would crash another 20%. But the fact is that you can negotiate 10-15% from the advertised price. And there are enough homes in the bank-repo and short sale categories where the prices are 20-30% below the price mentioned in zillow.
Having owned a town home for the last 2.5 years, I can very confidently say that the yard work and house cleaning etc. etc. are not such a big deal. Actually we mow our lawn with a manual push mower (may not be practical if you have more than 10 cents to mow) and clean the snow using a $10 snow shovel. Who said a little exercise is bad for you? I have also helped my single family friends in their yard work and never thought working outside is such a bad thing.
But there is a risk. And house is big ticket item, you have move cautiously.
I firmly believe in the Contrarian Theory. When speculators run, its time to get in and BUY. I owned two homes and I am in the process to getting a third one. I would be a good candidate for those TV shows on HGTv/TLC. I buy a home build equity(through appreciation) and flip. This will get me closer to my DREAM home. I cannot see myself in a home for more than 5 years.
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
more...
makeup Nikki-Reed-Paul-McDonald
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)
girlfriend New romance: Paul McDonald,
chanduv23
03-24 11:28 AM
Its a problem when we dont speak out on our issues - nobody understands our pain and.
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Remember the GREED brought American economy down.
Totally agree - but also remember - it is everybody's greed. During the Y2K days, consulates were approving visas left and right, I there used to be a one page LCA with H1b and I remember those companies were under pressure to bring people in - had clerks doing immigration paperwork in tonnes and then getting approvals at rapid pace.
If immigration always be of same standard - with standard measures to weed out resume fakers and fraud - good people won't get affected.
If someone wants to go back in life and point at things in past - they must go back and see if they always did the right thing.
Thats why I do not fully agree with UN. I agree USCIS are going tough - but not all companies or all immigrants are fraud because they lobbied or because economy is down or because anti immigrants are influencing them
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Remember the GREED brought American economy down.
Totally agree - but also remember - it is everybody's greed. During the Y2K days, consulates were approving visas left and right, I there used to be a one page LCA with H1b and I remember those companies were under pressure to bring people in - had clerks doing immigration paperwork in tonnes and then getting approvals at rapid pace.
If immigration always be of same standard - with standard measures to weed out resume fakers and fraud - good people won't get affected.
If someone wants to go back in life and point at things in past - they must go back and see if they always did the right thing.
Thats why I do not fully agree with UN. I agree USCIS are going tough - but not all companies or all immigrants are fraud because they lobbied or because economy is down or because anti immigrants are influencing them
hairstyles makeup american idol paul
Macaca
07-23 07:48 PM
Big Labor flexes its muscles in Congress � with mixed results (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/big-labor-flexes-its-muscles-in-congress--with-mixed-results-2007-07-24.html) By Ian Swanson, July 24, 2007
The day after voters returned Democrats to power in the House and Senate last year, the AFL-CIO held a press conference at its Washington headquarters to announce that union members had come to the polls in large numbers to vote Democratic.
They also promised to remind the new rulers of Congress that labor put them there, and that unions would be back in 2007 looking for support. So far, all indications show Democrats in Congress have been happy to oblige one of their most loyal constituencies.
Legislation backed by labor that was left on the shelves when the House was under Republican rule has been dusted off by Democrats and moved to the floor. This includes so-called card-check legislation approved by the House earlier this year, which was the subject of a huge lobbying fight between labor and business.
By contrast, free-trade agreements opposed by labor and negotiated by the Bush administration have been delayed, some apparently until after the 2008 election.
�There�s been a dramatic change since January,� said Bill Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO who is in frequent communication with Democratic leaders. �Issues that have been long ignored are now getting the attention they deserve.�
�I think they�ve done a fair job in recognizing what our priorities are and addressing them,� agreed Fred McLuckie, legislative director of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) agreed with the labor leaders, but put a different spin on the changing tides.
�The brazenness with which they�ve paid back Big Labor is astonishing,� said Putnam, who thinks the loyalty will come back to haunt Democrats next year, particularly since labor unions now represent less than 8 percent of the nation�s private workforce.
Putnam said the shifting fortunes for labor reflect �a blatant return to the old stereotype of Big Labor bosses pulling the strings of Democrats.�
Few Democrats, however, seem to think helping labor will hurt them. For example, only two House Democrats voted against the card-check legislation despite intense lobbying by business groups and negative advertisements in some districts. In the Senate, every Democrat voted in favor of card-check on the floor, as did Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
Pro-business Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) said he has some differences with unions on trade. But he has no problem supporting card-check or other pro-union bills that he sees as helping low- and middle-income workers get a share of the economic pie.
While card-check legislation, formally known as the Employee Free Choice Act, received the lion�s share of headlines over the first half of the year, dozens of other measures designed to help the labor movement have been inching forward.
For example, lawmakers have attached to several bills language requiring that workers be paid a prevailing wage � and the tactic has helped highlight divisions within the Republican Party. Fifty House Republicans voted to keep prevailing-wage language in a water-resources bill earlier this year.
In addition, the Teamsters and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers won a provision in the House Federal Aviation Administration bill that makes it easier for employees of Federal Express to form unions, which could be a boon to the Teamsters and the machinists union. A second provision backed by labor would force the administration back to the negotiating table with air traffic controllers.
And just last week, the House approved a bill providing collective-bargaining rights for firefighters and other first responders in all 50 states. The lower chamber also passed a Department of Labor funding bill that offers increased dollars for workplace enforcement offices like the Wage and Hour Division, which looks into claims that overtime is not being paid, while cutting funds for an office that investigates union corruption.
In the second half of 2007, the AFL-CIO expects to push for bankruptcy law reforms as well as legislation overturning a National Labor Relations Board ruling that broadly defined workers considered to be supervisors. Overturning the decision could allow many more workers to qualify for collective bargaining rights.
Furthermore, the Teamsters will continue to press Democrats to prevent the administration from carrying out plans to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads, McLuckie said.
Meanwhile, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, is lobbying aggressively on several broad policy issues, including an expansion of the State Children�s Health Insurance Program, according to Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
The debate over ending the war in Iraq is also a top priority for SEIU members, who are even more anti-war than the rest of the nation, Burger said, explaining that the SEIU sees the Iraq war as diverting funds that could be used to provide universal healthcare and other priorities.
Still, while union proposals have won momentum, only one union priority � an increase in the minimum wage � has actually become law. Other measures have been held up in the Senate by Republican-led filibusters or are threatened by presidential vetoes.
While the AFL-CIO�s Samuel admits that moving from a defensive posture to offense has been exciting, he said there is frustration that labor issues have been held up in the Senate. And he insists Democrats have not given labor a blank check, even though he and his colleagues are spending more time in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in this Congress. �You still have to argue your case on its merits,� he said.
�For the last 12 years we were for the most part on the defensive,� Samuel continued. �It was other people who were making decisions which we were reacting to. I think now we are able to make decisions, to decide what issues to promote.�
AFL-CIO officials meet weekly to decide which issues to push for. They are also in frequent contact with other labor leaders, who say there�s no evidence that Democratic leaders are playing favorites among the sometimes-fractious labor movement.
SEIU and the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO a few years ago and formed the Change to Win coalition. But McLuckie said he hadn�t heard any complaints within the Change to Win coalition about access to Democrats.
For their part, Republicans hope to use labor�s successes to portray Democrats as too compliant with union demands. For example, the National Republican Senate Committee is already trying to raise money from small businesses spooked by the card-check bill.
It has produced an ominously scored video featuring grainy footage of Senate Democrats rallying for the card-check legislation to convince businesses to donate to the GOP next year. In the video, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tells the crowd, �We have a majority in the U.S. Senate because of you.� Meanwhile, the figure $1,389,489 flashes on the screen to reflect the contributions Reid has received from �Big Labor.�
The video closes with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) promising to sign the bill into law when she is president, and notes Republicans need only two seats to regain control of the Senate.
While unions are holding off on their presidential endorsements for now, the video reflects their long-term plan for card check. In 2009, labor hopes to have a Democratic president and a larger majority in the Senate, which would make business-backed filibusters more difficult.
�I think it will be easier next time,� said Samuel, who thinks the labor agenda in Congress will help Democrats in next year�s elections. �I think these measures are generally very popular.�
The day after voters returned Democrats to power in the House and Senate last year, the AFL-CIO held a press conference at its Washington headquarters to announce that union members had come to the polls in large numbers to vote Democratic.
They also promised to remind the new rulers of Congress that labor put them there, and that unions would be back in 2007 looking for support. So far, all indications show Democrats in Congress have been happy to oblige one of their most loyal constituencies.
Legislation backed by labor that was left on the shelves when the House was under Republican rule has been dusted off by Democrats and moved to the floor. This includes so-called card-check legislation approved by the House earlier this year, which was the subject of a huge lobbying fight between labor and business.
By contrast, free-trade agreements opposed by labor and negotiated by the Bush administration have been delayed, some apparently until after the 2008 election.
�There�s been a dramatic change since January,� said Bill Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO who is in frequent communication with Democratic leaders. �Issues that have been long ignored are now getting the attention they deserve.�
�I think they�ve done a fair job in recognizing what our priorities are and addressing them,� agreed Fred McLuckie, legislative director of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) agreed with the labor leaders, but put a different spin on the changing tides.
�The brazenness with which they�ve paid back Big Labor is astonishing,� said Putnam, who thinks the loyalty will come back to haunt Democrats next year, particularly since labor unions now represent less than 8 percent of the nation�s private workforce.
Putnam said the shifting fortunes for labor reflect �a blatant return to the old stereotype of Big Labor bosses pulling the strings of Democrats.�
Few Democrats, however, seem to think helping labor will hurt them. For example, only two House Democrats voted against the card-check legislation despite intense lobbying by business groups and negative advertisements in some districts. In the Senate, every Democrat voted in favor of card-check on the floor, as did Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
Pro-business Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) said he has some differences with unions on trade. But he has no problem supporting card-check or other pro-union bills that he sees as helping low- and middle-income workers get a share of the economic pie.
While card-check legislation, formally known as the Employee Free Choice Act, received the lion�s share of headlines over the first half of the year, dozens of other measures designed to help the labor movement have been inching forward.
For example, lawmakers have attached to several bills language requiring that workers be paid a prevailing wage � and the tactic has helped highlight divisions within the Republican Party. Fifty House Republicans voted to keep prevailing-wage language in a water-resources bill earlier this year.
In addition, the Teamsters and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers won a provision in the House Federal Aviation Administration bill that makes it easier for employees of Federal Express to form unions, which could be a boon to the Teamsters and the machinists union. A second provision backed by labor would force the administration back to the negotiating table with air traffic controllers.
And just last week, the House approved a bill providing collective-bargaining rights for firefighters and other first responders in all 50 states. The lower chamber also passed a Department of Labor funding bill that offers increased dollars for workplace enforcement offices like the Wage and Hour Division, which looks into claims that overtime is not being paid, while cutting funds for an office that investigates union corruption.
In the second half of 2007, the AFL-CIO expects to push for bankruptcy law reforms as well as legislation overturning a National Labor Relations Board ruling that broadly defined workers considered to be supervisors. Overturning the decision could allow many more workers to qualify for collective bargaining rights.
Furthermore, the Teamsters will continue to press Democrats to prevent the administration from carrying out plans to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads, McLuckie said.
Meanwhile, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, is lobbying aggressively on several broad policy issues, including an expansion of the State Children�s Health Insurance Program, according to Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
The debate over ending the war in Iraq is also a top priority for SEIU members, who are even more anti-war than the rest of the nation, Burger said, explaining that the SEIU sees the Iraq war as diverting funds that could be used to provide universal healthcare and other priorities.
Still, while union proposals have won momentum, only one union priority � an increase in the minimum wage � has actually become law. Other measures have been held up in the Senate by Republican-led filibusters or are threatened by presidential vetoes.
While the AFL-CIO�s Samuel admits that moving from a defensive posture to offense has been exciting, he said there is frustration that labor issues have been held up in the Senate. And he insists Democrats have not given labor a blank check, even though he and his colleagues are spending more time in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in this Congress. �You still have to argue your case on its merits,� he said.
�For the last 12 years we were for the most part on the defensive,� Samuel continued. �It was other people who were making decisions which we were reacting to. I think now we are able to make decisions, to decide what issues to promote.�
AFL-CIO officials meet weekly to decide which issues to push for. They are also in frequent contact with other labor leaders, who say there�s no evidence that Democratic leaders are playing favorites among the sometimes-fractious labor movement.
SEIU and the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO a few years ago and formed the Change to Win coalition. But McLuckie said he hadn�t heard any complaints within the Change to Win coalition about access to Democrats.
For their part, Republicans hope to use labor�s successes to portray Democrats as too compliant with union demands. For example, the National Republican Senate Committee is already trying to raise money from small businesses spooked by the card-check bill.
It has produced an ominously scored video featuring grainy footage of Senate Democrats rallying for the card-check legislation to convince businesses to donate to the GOP next year. In the video, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tells the crowd, �We have a majority in the U.S. Senate because of you.� Meanwhile, the figure $1,389,489 flashes on the screen to reflect the contributions Reid has received from �Big Labor.�
The video closes with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) promising to sign the bill into law when she is president, and notes Republicans need only two seats to regain control of the Senate.
While unions are holding off on their presidential endorsements for now, the video reflects their long-term plan for card check. In 2009, labor hopes to have a Democratic president and a larger majority in the Senate, which would make business-backed filibusters more difficult.
�I think it will be easier next time,� said Samuel, who thinks the labor agenda in Congress will help Democrats in next year�s elections. �I think these measures are generally very popular.�
sledge_hammer
03-24 02:44 PM
Okay, sorry if I wrote H-1B. But the "perm" job requirement is for GC.
I kind of mixed the H-1B requirement and GC requirement.
But, the question remains and USCIS needs to clarify what is perm and temp jobs for the purpose of GREEN CARD.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
I kind of mixed the H-1B requirement and GC requirement.
But, the question remains and USCIS needs to clarify what is perm and temp jobs for the purpose of GREEN CARD.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
NolaIndian32
09-28 07:58 PM
I agree 100% with the quote below; if Durbin gets his way, there will be no light at the end of the tunnel for the EB community.
I have been in the US, legally for 14+ years. I have stayed within the law, regulations to get my green card, but still after 8 years in this antiquated and dysfunctional process, I am "in queue". Twice I have had to turn down promotions to executive level within my organization because of restrictions of "same to similar" regulation. Even my CEO is frustrated with this situation. If Durbin has his way, I can no longer afford to put my life on hold. I will be forced to sell my house and relocate to Canada.
McCain supports immigration for legally employed immigrants. I pray that he wins the election this November.
After 8 yrs of Bush, I sure am ready for Democrats to take over. America needs a change. But Sen. Obama's victory will surely spell doom and gloom for the EB community - of which I am one.
I have been in the United States for 9 years - LEGALLY. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. My kids are American Citizens. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy. We even bought a house here in the hope that we can settle down in America. Me and my husband hold executive level positions in major multinationals. Here is the absolute kicker - I work in Satellite Telecommunications and my company supports the United States Government (DoD) and its contractors/ sub contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan!!
We wanted Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke us up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for us EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community forced us to secure the Canadian PR. We have a little bit more time to decide when we want to move there before our PR expires. If things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, we will move to Canada. I just dread having to sell the house here though!!
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against teh EB community. My question to Sen.Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
I have been in the US, legally for 14+ years. I have stayed within the law, regulations to get my green card, but still after 8 years in this antiquated and dysfunctional process, I am "in queue". Twice I have had to turn down promotions to executive level within my organization because of restrictions of "same to similar" regulation. Even my CEO is frustrated with this situation. If Durbin has his way, I can no longer afford to put my life on hold. I will be forced to sell my house and relocate to Canada.
McCain supports immigration for legally employed immigrants. I pray that he wins the election this November.
After 8 yrs of Bush, I sure am ready for Democrats to take over. America needs a change. But Sen. Obama's victory will surely spell doom and gloom for the EB community - of which I am one.
I have been in the United States for 9 years - LEGALLY. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. My kids are American Citizens. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy. We even bought a house here in the hope that we can settle down in America. Me and my husband hold executive level positions in major multinationals. Here is the absolute kicker - I work in Satellite Telecommunications and my company supports the United States Government (DoD) and its contractors/ sub contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan!!
We wanted Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke us up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for us EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community forced us to secure the Canadian PR. We have a little bit more time to decide when we want to move there before our PR expires. If things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, we will move to Canada. I just dread having to sell the house here though!!
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against teh EB community. My question to Sen.Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
No comments:
Post a Comment