alterego
11-11 10:50 PM
Americans are fair minded for the most part. They saw the propoganda of the far right for what it was. This election did not tilt on immigration, but on other issues. However the fact that the conservatives got zero traction from their hard line approach implies that the country was looking for a more comprehensive solution.
I think that the american public does want secure borders and to some extent is unhappy with the status quo on the border. However they are also cognisant of the fact that immigrant labour benefits them and their lifestyles tremendously. They by and large do not favour a get tough only policy. They could easily embrace a policy where hardworking people can "earn their way" into the kingdom. Bipartisanship will perhaps show the way forward. Imagine those guys like Sensenbrenner,Tancredo would not even negotiate with the Senate or allow anything pro any kind of immigration to a general house vote taking advantage of their majority position by their "majority of the majority rule". They even actively stripped legal immigration provisions in conference last year. As for Sensenbrenner and his types. Lets see how much they enjoy being in the "minority of the minority" now, I guess the bulldog that chewed out the senators and cleaned his teeth with their bones is now but a mere poodle in the room! Gotta love elections in a democracy.
I think that the american public does want secure borders and to some extent is unhappy with the status quo on the border. However they are also cognisant of the fact that immigrant labour benefits them and their lifestyles tremendously. They by and large do not favour a get tough only policy. They could easily embrace a policy where hardworking people can "earn their way" into the kingdom. Bipartisanship will perhaps show the way forward. Imagine those guys like Sensenbrenner,Tancredo would not even negotiate with the Senate or allow anything pro any kind of immigration to a general house vote taking advantage of their majority position by their "majority of the majority rule". They even actively stripped legal immigration provisions in conference last year. As for Sensenbrenner and his types. Lets see how much they enjoy being in the "minority of the minority" now, I guess the bulldog that chewed out the senators and cleaned his teeth with their bones is now but a mere poodle in the room! Gotta love elections in a democracy.
wallpaper pippa middleton. house Pippa
srkamath
07-13 05:59 PM
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initatives - call campaigns for House bils...
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
EB1 EB2 EB3 are "preference" categories established by a law. This letter seems to be demanding that the DOS ignore the "preference" - Sorry it won't work.
Elsewhere in this forum someone has another letter campaign directed at visa re-capture legislation. That might have some influence.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
EB1 EB2 EB3 are "preference" categories established by a law. This letter seems to be demanding that the DOS ignore the "preference" - Sorry it won't work.
Elsewhere in this forum someone has another letter campaign directed at visa re-capture legislation. That might have some influence.
gc_bucs
05-31 05:28 PM
Lou's opinioins are well known. He's ripped every one across the spectrum.
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the crazy man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the crazy man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
2011 Instant Pippa Middleton
unitednations
07-19 02:07 PM
It looks like this thread has really started to make peope think of the "status issues".
A lot of people have sent me PM's to assist them. However; I can't take this off-line; therefore, please resist from sending me PM's.
Reason I participated in this discussion was to highlight some of the things that people should think of and determine best courses of actions.
attornies and the like are very busy doing their current work. There is a high chance that they may not do the proper due diligence or ask you the proper questions before they file.
You all need to have a very thorough discussion with your attornies and take second opinions where necessary. I can tell you that depending on your attornies case load; how many phone calls they are taking; they may provide you advice that would suit their own needs (ie., get you off the phone the quickest and let them carry on with their normal duties).
Unless the law changes; everyone will be stuck in retrogression for a long time. If UScis should pre-adudicate and deny 485's then you will lose the opportunity to re-file for quite some time.
This is an important topic as this is what uscis mainly looks at in the 485 stage. I suggest people discuss it with their attornies and make sure you have every situation covered before you file the 485.
A lot of people have sent me PM's to assist them. However; I can't take this off-line; therefore, please resist from sending me PM's.
Reason I participated in this discussion was to highlight some of the things that people should think of and determine best courses of actions.
attornies and the like are very busy doing their current work. There is a high chance that they may not do the proper due diligence or ask you the proper questions before they file.
You all need to have a very thorough discussion with your attornies and take second opinions where necessary. I can tell you that depending on your attornies case load; how many phone calls they are taking; they may provide you advice that would suit their own needs (ie., get you off the phone the quickest and let them carry on with their normal duties).
Unless the law changes; everyone will be stuck in retrogression for a long time. If UScis should pre-adudicate and deny 485's then you will lose the opportunity to re-file for quite some time.
This is an important topic as this is what uscis mainly looks at in the 485 stage. I suggest people discuss it with their attornies and make sure you have every situation covered before you file the 485.
more...
Arjun
07-14 08:35 PM
I dont understand your argument, may be I misunderstood. Who will benefit from EB1 to EB3 spill over ROW or retrogressed countries. It likely EB3 ROW. So why EB3 Indian writing the letter? May be things should be more clear about what you want to achieve.
The way it is working for EB2, it is going to work exactly for EB3.
The way it is working for EB2, it is going to work exactly for EB3.
Macaca
12-20 08:01 AM
Congress's Mixed Results (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902030.html) Democratic promises meet legislative reality, Dec 20, 2007
FOR CONGRESSIONAL Democrats, the first session of the 110th Congress offered a sobering lesson in the practical limits of majority control. Democrats delivered part of what they had promised to the voters who returned them to power last November and recorded some significant achievements. But more often, Democrats found their legislative plans stymied -- first by Senate Republicans' willingness to filibuster any proposal with which they disagreed, then by the president's newfound zeal to exercise his veto power. The scorecard, in the end, is disappointingly mixed. Still, Democrats are more to blame for overpromising than for failing to deliver; their triumphant promises of January were never realistic. Given the slenderest of Senate majorities and the willingness of the minority to wield the filibuster with unprecedented frequency, Democrats' maneuvering room was dramatically limited.
On the plus side of the legislative ledger, President Bush signed an energy bill yesterday that will raise fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the first time in 32 years, to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That is a significant achievement, albeit one that could have been even greater had Republicans not blocked efforts to include new requirements for boosting use of renewable sources of energy and to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies.
Likewise, Democrats were able to secure the first increase in the minimum wage in nine years and the largest expansion of college aid since the GI bill, cutting interest rates on subsidized student loans and increasing the maximum Pell grant. They passed an important lobbying and ethics reform bill that will shine light on the bundles of campaign cash delivered by registered lobbyists and clamped down on lawmakers' ability to accept meals, travel and entertainment from lobbyists and those who employ them.
The keenest Democratic disappointment -- failing to force the president to rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- is no disappointment to us. Although unhappiness with the war in Iraq helped propel Democrats to victory, in the end President Bush was able to secure continuing funding for the war with no strings attached. Of far more concern: Democrats could not overcome presidential vetoes of bills providing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research or expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The children's health issue deserves another try next year; the extension that Congress adopted jeopardizes existing coverage for some children and makes it difficult for states to move forward with planned expansions of coverage.
Democrats spent much of the session congratulating themselves, appropriately so, for reinstating pay-as-you-go rules requiring tax cuts or increases in mandatory spending to be paid for with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts.
In the end, however, Democrats capitulated to a Republican refusal to pay for the $50 billion, one-year patch applied to the alternative minimum tax. The budget process was nearly as unattractive as ever, with a host of overdue spending bills wrapped into a giant package passed in the final hours of the session.
Of most concern are the serious issues that remain unaddressed -- and that aren't likely to be taken up next year, either. An overhaul of the nation's failed immigration policy fell victim to ugly politics, despite the support of the president. Entitlement reform -- in particular a response to the looming Social Security shortfall -- never got off the ground, the victim of distrust and intransigence on both sides. Prospects next year for reauthorizing the president's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, look dim.
The year before a presidential election is rarely a fertile moment for lawmaking; the poisonous level of partisanship in both houses makes that even more unlikely. Republicans seem to have concluded that their electoral hopes lie in blocking Democrats from ringing up any achievements. For their part, House Democrats have conveniently forgotten their pledges to treat the minority with more fairness than they were accorded when Republicans had control.
Yet the new year will dawn with issues of enormous importance on the congressional agenda. In addition to those mentioned above, we would note the worthwhile proposal by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) to adopt a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers and the president can continue to bicker and elbow for advantage until the next election rolls around -- or they can gamble that they have more to gain with a disgusted electorate by cooperating and getting something done.
FOR CONGRESSIONAL Democrats, the first session of the 110th Congress offered a sobering lesson in the practical limits of majority control. Democrats delivered part of what they had promised to the voters who returned them to power last November and recorded some significant achievements. But more often, Democrats found their legislative plans stymied -- first by Senate Republicans' willingness to filibuster any proposal with which they disagreed, then by the president's newfound zeal to exercise his veto power. The scorecard, in the end, is disappointingly mixed. Still, Democrats are more to blame for overpromising than for failing to deliver; their triumphant promises of January were never realistic. Given the slenderest of Senate majorities and the willingness of the minority to wield the filibuster with unprecedented frequency, Democrats' maneuvering room was dramatically limited.
On the plus side of the legislative ledger, President Bush signed an energy bill yesterday that will raise fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the first time in 32 years, to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That is a significant achievement, albeit one that could have been even greater had Republicans not blocked efforts to include new requirements for boosting use of renewable sources of energy and to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies.
Likewise, Democrats were able to secure the first increase in the minimum wage in nine years and the largest expansion of college aid since the GI bill, cutting interest rates on subsidized student loans and increasing the maximum Pell grant. They passed an important lobbying and ethics reform bill that will shine light on the bundles of campaign cash delivered by registered lobbyists and clamped down on lawmakers' ability to accept meals, travel and entertainment from lobbyists and those who employ them.
The keenest Democratic disappointment -- failing to force the president to rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- is no disappointment to us. Although unhappiness with the war in Iraq helped propel Democrats to victory, in the end President Bush was able to secure continuing funding for the war with no strings attached. Of far more concern: Democrats could not overcome presidential vetoes of bills providing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research or expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The children's health issue deserves another try next year; the extension that Congress adopted jeopardizes existing coverage for some children and makes it difficult for states to move forward with planned expansions of coverage.
Democrats spent much of the session congratulating themselves, appropriately so, for reinstating pay-as-you-go rules requiring tax cuts or increases in mandatory spending to be paid for with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts.
In the end, however, Democrats capitulated to a Republican refusal to pay for the $50 billion, one-year patch applied to the alternative minimum tax. The budget process was nearly as unattractive as ever, with a host of overdue spending bills wrapped into a giant package passed in the final hours of the session.
Of most concern are the serious issues that remain unaddressed -- and that aren't likely to be taken up next year, either. An overhaul of the nation's failed immigration policy fell victim to ugly politics, despite the support of the president. Entitlement reform -- in particular a response to the looming Social Security shortfall -- never got off the ground, the victim of distrust and intransigence on both sides. Prospects next year for reauthorizing the president's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, look dim.
The year before a presidential election is rarely a fertile moment for lawmaking; the poisonous level of partisanship in both houses makes that even more unlikely. Republicans seem to have concluded that their electoral hopes lie in blocking Democrats from ringing up any achievements. For their part, House Democrats have conveniently forgotten their pledges to treat the minority with more fairness than they were accorded when Republicans had control.
Yet the new year will dawn with issues of enormous importance on the congressional agenda. In addition to those mentioned above, we would note the worthwhile proposal by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) to adopt a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers and the president can continue to bicker and elbow for advantage until the next election rolls around -- or they can gamble that they have more to gain with a disgusted electorate by cooperating and getting something done.
more...
jonty_11
07-14 02:33 PM
and to prevent such chasms from forming and getting deeper...we all need to look to IV core for guidance and follow only their Action Items. It is critical or else we will find ourselves with our foot in the mouth.
2010 about Pippa Middleton and
Madhuri
05-16 11:08 AM
Very well said Sanju. You put everything in right perspective.
more...
raysaikat
06-24 12:04 PM
[snip...]
If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it?
[snip...]
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it?
[snip...]
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
hair Pippa Middleton Pippa
vamsi_poondla
09-27 10:07 AM
I wish Obama wins. His team has more clarity on many issues and he has the zeal like JFK for making things happen. But, a big but - I am very concerned about our Employment Based immigration. If he gets to win (I wish he does..as someone who want to see America regain it's global position not just with might but also being morally right), I am worried if it would be Sen. Durbin who will dictate the immigration policy.
I wish we get some clarity in this aspect. In the economic downturn, I wish to work more than I ever did and see that US comes out of recession fast. But for that I have to be inside the country first. I have to be given a fair chance to contribute to this economy first and I need to be treated with respect and honor.
I wish we get some clarity in this aspect. In the economic downturn, I wish to work more than I ever did and see that US comes out of recession fast. But for that I have to be inside the country first. I have to be given a fair chance to contribute to this economy first and I need to be treated with respect and honor.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-06 01:32 PM
Two nuns were ordered to paint a room in the convent . . .
. . . and the last instruction from the Mother Superior was that they not get a drop of paint on their habits. After conferring about this for a while, the nuns decided to lock the door of the room, strip off their habits, and paint in the nude. In the middle of the project, there came a knock at the door.
"Who is it?," called one of the nuns.
"The blind man," replied a voice from the other side of the door.
The two nuns looked at each other and shrugged. Deciding that no harm could come from letting a blind man into the room, they opened the door.
"Nice butt, sister," said the man, "where do you want these blinds?"
. . . and the last instruction from the Mother Superior was that they not get a drop of paint on their habits. After conferring about this for a while, the nuns decided to lock the door of the room, strip off their habits, and paint in the nude. In the middle of the project, there came a knock at the door.
"Who is it?," called one of the nuns.
"The blind man," replied a voice from the other side of the door.
The two nuns looked at each other and shrugged. Deciding that no harm could come from letting a blind man into the room, they opened the door.
"Nice butt, sister," said the man, "where do you want these blinds?"
hot Pippa Middleton;
Macaca
12-23 10:53 AM
Pelosi's first year as House speaker marked by little change on war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/23/MNOUU26C5.DTL&tsp=1) By Zachary Coile | SF Chronicle, Dec 23, 2007
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
more...
house pippa middleton legs images
Macaca
05-20 06:13 PM
The United States v Canada (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration) The Economist
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
tattoo Pippa Middleton
pthoko
07-11 05:27 PM
Putting more pressure on the UN
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
more...
pictures Pippa Middleton attends the
mbartosik
04-09 12:39 PM
we've found that the more compelling arguments tend to be those related to US competitiveness. If I was to use the housing argument in a meeting, I would use it in a light hearted way while making a serious point. But it would certainly not be an issue that would be worth focusing on.
You said it in post above -- e.g. competitive with European blue card.
(The Blue Card is not like GC, however, comparing with UK and right to remain after a fixed 5 year period would be an argument more compelling than housing)
Which are the most compelling arguments will also depend on the law maker's background. For some family issues are a factor, then housing can be brought into the mix with other issues like age out. However, law makers with which the family issues hold greater sway also are more likely to hold us hostage for CIR and relief for the undocumented.
For most, common sense of justice is an issue, in which case housing can be brought up, but again, not an issue to focus on too much, more in the context of 'it is ironic that many of us want to buy houses but GC wait is what prohibits that, not the credit crunch'. Can be mentioned in passing, but not worth focusing on.
You said it in post above -- e.g. competitive with European blue card.
(The Blue Card is not like GC, however, comparing with UK and right to remain after a fixed 5 year period would be an argument more compelling than housing)
Which are the most compelling arguments will also depend on the law maker's background. For some family issues are a factor, then housing can be brought into the mix with other issues like age out. However, law makers with which the family issues hold greater sway also are more likely to hold us hostage for CIR and relief for the undocumented.
For most, common sense of justice is an issue, in which case housing can be brought up, but again, not an issue to focus on too much, more in the context of 'it is ironic that many of us want to buy houses but GC wait is what prohibits that, not the credit crunch'. Can be mentioned in passing, but not worth focusing on.
dresses Vote: Pippa Middleton Vs. Kate
Macaca
03-06 09:02 PM
Foriegn Labor Certification (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/OFLC_Report_v11_8-23-07.pdf) International Talent Helping meet Employer Demand | Performance Report: Mar 28 2005 - Sep 30 2006, Office of Foriegn Labor Certification, Employment and Training Administration, US Department of Labor
Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
Programs Funded by the H-1B Visa Education and Training Fee, and Labor Market Conditions for Information Technology (IT) Workers (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/CRS%20H1B%20fees%20Jan%202007.pdf), CRS Report for Congress, Updated January 23, 2007
H- 1B PROFESSIONALS AND WAGES: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT (http://www.nfap.net/researchactivities/articles/NFAPPolicyBriefH1BProfessionalsAndWages0306.pdf), NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN POLICY, March 2006
The Contribution of Legal Immigration to the Social Security System (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=12396) By Stuart Anderson | Executive Director, National Foundation for American Policy, Arlington, Va., February 2005
From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/scid-2005.pdf)Transnational Communities and Regional Upgrading in India and China By AnnaLee Saxenian
Brain Circulation: How High-Skill Immigration Makes Everyone Better Off (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/brain-circulation-brookings-review-2002.pdf) By AnnaLee Saxenian | THE BROOKINGS REVIEW
Winter 2002 Vol.20 No.1
The International Mobility of Entrepreneurs and Regional Upgrading in India and China (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/International_Mobility_of_Entrepreneurs.pdf) By AnnaLee Saxenian, September 7, 2007
Education, Entrepreneurship and Immigration (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/Americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs_II.pdf): America ’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs , Part II By Vivek Wadhwa, Ben Rissing, AnnaLee Saxenian, Gary Gereffi
America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/Americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs_I.pdf) Part I
The new Argonauts (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/IMF_World_Bank_paper.pdf)
Review of Vulnerabilities and Potential Abuses of the L-1 Visa Program (http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/katovrsght/OIG_06-22_Jan06.pdf), DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General, OIG-06-22 January 2006
Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
Programs Funded by the H-1B Visa Education and Training Fee, and Labor Market Conditions for Information Technology (IT) Workers (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/CRS%20H1B%20fees%20Jan%202007.pdf), CRS Report for Congress, Updated January 23, 2007
H- 1B PROFESSIONALS AND WAGES: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT (http://www.nfap.net/researchactivities/articles/NFAPPolicyBriefH1BProfessionalsAndWages0306.pdf), NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN POLICY, March 2006
The Contribution of Legal Immigration to the Social Security System (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=12396) By Stuart Anderson | Executive Director, National Foundation for American Policy, Arlington, Va., February 2005
From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/scid-2005.pdf)Transnational Communities and Regional Upgrading in India and China By AnnaLee Saxenian
Brain Circulation: How High-Skill Immigration Makes Everyone Better Off (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/brain-circulation-brookings-review-2002.pdf) By AnnaLee Saxenian | THE BROOKINGS REVIEW
Winter 2002 Vol.20 No.1
The International Mobility of Entrepreneurs and Regional Upgrading in India and China (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/International_Mobility_of_Entrepreneurs.pdf) By AnnaLee Saxenian, September 7, 2007
Education, Entrepreneurship and Immigration (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/Americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs_II.pdf): America ’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs , Part II By Vivek Wadhwa, Ben Rissing, AnnaLee Saxenian, Gary Gereffi
America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/Americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs_I.pdf) Part I
The new Argonauts (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/IMF_World_Bank_paper.pdf)
Review of Vulnerabilities and Potential Abuses of the L-1 Visa Program (http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/katovrsght/OIG_06-22_Jan06.pdf), DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Office of Inspector General, OIG-06-22 January 2006
more...
makeup Pippa Middleton Pictures
desi485
08-05 11:36 AM
This person hiding behind the user id "Rolling_Flood" is an extreme selfish person. The whole idea of our community is to help each other and to provide support & guidance to each-other. Instead he is trying to stop others from getting this advantage, trying to make us believe that EB-2 is his birth-right. I am in EB-2, but I do not support this selfish fox, he will harm the IV community exploiting 'divide & rule' policy. :mad:
girlfriend Pippa Middleton
chanduv23
04-13 01:40 PM
It is not illegal to work on percentage basis. But if employer-employee relationship is now followed the way it should be followed by law then there are issues. For example, you are not in the same medical plans as employees or your work insurance is not covered (or you are not invited in annual christmas party for employees - just kidding). Specially, labor approval procedure has heavy dependency on prevailing wages and salary offered. In percentage basis there is no salary offered. Think about it.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
From what I understand, employers ready to pay all these benefits if employee decides to be salaried, but will not give employee control over the billing.
In my case, I never take per diem, but I do find projects on my own and control over how much I must get and employer adjusts payroll accordingly because I marketed myself and also work hard at the client and get projects extended due to performance which benefits the employer, I also help employer with inhouse work. My wife has excellent benefits covered so I don't bother to take any benefits from my employer other than the money.
Anyone can be paid a fixed consulting fee, just not h1b. You can find US citizens working for hourly pay because they don't need benefits as they may get through spouse.
As long as you declare income and pay taxes, this is not a grey area.
Once again, anti immigrants can make this also an issue as for them everything with H1b seems to be an issue.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
From what I understand, employers ready to pay all these benefits if employee decides to be salaried, but will not give employee control over the billing.
In my case, I never take per diem, but I do find projects on my own and control over how much I must get and employer adjusts payroll accordingly because I marketed myself and also work hard at the client and get projects extended due to performance which benefits the employer, I also help employer with inhouse work. My wife has excellent benefits covered so I don't bother to take any benefits from my employer other than the money.
Anyone can be paid a fixed consulting fee, just not h1b. You can find US citizens working for hourly pay because they don't need benefits as they may get through spouse.
As long as you declare income and pay taxes, this is not a grey area.
Once again, anti immigrants can make this also an issue as for them everything with H1b seems to be an issue.
hairstyles Pippa Middleton: Fashion Watch
file485
07-09 12:02 PM
You can enter USA on a different companies h-1b visa then the h-1b you are currently working for.
However; the mistake people make is that at the port of entry; they give their h-1b documents and POE officer only looks at the companies name on the visa. They then issue the I-94 card in that companies name with the validity of the visa. This is something that happens frequently.
Person has been admitted on company a's h-1b but they are going to work for company b. They are not watching because company b's h-1b notice of action expires later but port of entry officer gave i-94 card with incorrect company and incorrect validity date. If person overstays the incorrect validity date on the I-94 card then they would be considered to be staying unlawfully.
The problem is that there is some guidance from the office of business liaisons which says that if a person has multiple h-1b approvals (notice of actions has I-94 cards attached with it), then they can work with all of them but just not at the same time. That is person can transfer from company a to b to c and if they wish they can go back to company a without filing for change of employer. However; it gets very murky when person leaves and re-enters and enters on wrong company h-1b with incorrect validity dates.
thanks for the clarification on this..
but when we re-entered the US, the i94 just mentioned 'on H1 status ..until..xx/xx date'..same way for H4-i94 card mentioned 'on H4 status ..until xx/xx date'..
we dint show any INS papers..except for the passport
In our case,when my daughter came to US in May 2003, we had the i94 original(which we didn't keep the photocopy for our records),filed for her H4 etxn,went to Toronto for H1/H4 stamping,in 2 months when we went for vacation to India, gave away that i94 card at the airport while exiting and re-entered with a new i94.
I can still see that i94 card lingering in front of my eyes..for which I dint keep a photocopy..
However; the mistake people make is that at the port of entry; they give their h-1b documents and POE officer only looks at the companies name on the visa. They then issue the I-94 card in that companies name with the validity of the visa. This is something that happens frequently.
Person has been admitted on company a's h-1b but they are going to work for company b. They are not watching because company b's h-1b notice of action expires later but port of entry officer gave i-94 card with incorrect company and incorrect validity date. If person overstays the incorrect validity date on the I-94 card then they would be considered to be staying unlawfully.
The problem is that there is some guidance from the office of business liaisons which says that if a person has multiple h-1b approvals (notice of actions has I-94 cards attached with it), then they can work with all of them but just not at the same time. That is person can transfer from company a to b to c and if they wish they can go back to company a without filing for change of employer. However; it gets very murky when person leaves and re-enters and enters on wrong company h-1b with incorrect validity dates.
thanks for the clarification on this..
but when we re-entered the US, the i94 just mentioned 'on H1 status ..until..xx/xx date'..same way for H4-i94 card mentioned 'on H4 status ..until xx/xx date'..
we dint show any INS papers..except for the passport
In our case,when my daughter came to US in May 2003, we had the i94 original(which we didn't keep the photocopy for our records),filed for her H4 etxn,went to Toronto for H1/H4 stamping,in 2 months when we went for vacation to India, gave away that i94 card at the airport while exiting and re-entered with a new i94.
I can still see that i94 card lingering in front of my eyes..for which I dint keep a photocopy..
alisa
12-30 01:05 AM
If that is true, to complete the circle, you'll also see terrorist attacks, sponsored by India, on innocent civilians in Pakistan. You'll soon get a fitting reply, something which will put the lives of your mom and dad in danger and scare the hell out of them.
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
santb1975
10-01 01:30 AM
I am
After the bail-out bill failed in the House, Obama immediately posted a response reassuring Americans and investors that the leaders will come up with another soon.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
After the bail-out bill failed in the House, Obama immediately posted a response reassuring Americans and investors that the leaders will come up with another soon.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
No comments:
Post a Comment