desighee
08-25 12:36 PM
I heard some one telling me that there is a max limit of 5000 mts per month which includes local, long distance and international.
Is it true or just a rumor ?
read their terms and conditions...the unlimited plan holds good for normal residential use.Normal residential use is defined as a usage of less than 5000 minutes.so basically it is a hidden way of saying 5000 min/month.if it goes over that vonage can disconnect your service or charge extra per their discreetion
Is it true or just a rumor ?
read their terms and conditions...the unlimited plan holds good for normal residential use.Normal residential use is defined as a usage of less than 5000 minutes.so basically it is a hidden way of saying 5000 min/month.if it goes over that vonage can disconnect your service or charge extra per their discreetion
wallpaper “Move Icon Column” now in
spatial
08-20 07:31 PM
Not excatly. eb3_2004 has posted the link of INA. You will find more interesting things if you read through it.
Non-descrimination rule is clearly spelled out in Section 202 (a). I assume this rule should be generally applied to all applicants, no matter which categories they are falling, unless other rules specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203.
INA does not say to spillover unused visas first to EB2 then EB3. I assume USCIS and Department of State should treat each EB applicants equally (based on their priority dates, not based on EB categories) in according to INA act.
It is likely the misinterpretation violates the law. We need some one which more professional knowledge to read through it. Can some core member help?
if a change in interpretation is done intentionally, then USCIS admits they were allotting visas incorrectly during the previous years...if it were a public company, lawyers would be climbing over one another to file a class action suit...unfortunately all we can do is write letters, make phone calls and pray :rolleyes:
Non-descrimination rule is clearly spelled out in Section 202 (a). I assume this rule should be generally applied to all applicants, no matter which categories they are falling, unless other rules specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203.
INA does not say to spillover unused visas first to EB2 then EB3. I assume USCIS and Department of State should treat each EB applicants equally (based on their priority dates, not based on EB categories) in according to INA act.
It is likely the misinterpretation violates the law. We need some one which more professional knowledge to read through it. Can some core member help?
if a change in interpretation is done intentionally, then USCIS admits they were allotting visas incorrectly during the previous years...if it were a public company, lawyers would be climbing over one another to file a class action suit...unfortunately all we can do is write letters, make phone calls and pray :rolleyes:
newtoearth
05-10 08:44 PM
Look at this looser.. Don't have a job and typing such a long long prose stories get over his career failures and projecting his impotency as some else�s fault... This bloody racist is out of job because of his such a rude behavior... But we have a job... so it is waste of our time talk to this bloody...
Hey fool Hunter.... you are a bloody illegal in this country get out of here if you don�t know history ask your grand father. First do some thing about your illegal status and then talk about India. You are cultured less brut, I repeat cultured less brut. Its damn real that your youngsters are doing only three things drinking, sex, crime...
Thank you for admitting most of what I stated here true. Actually all of what I stated here as �skills� are based on my experience in IT management over the last decade. If you suddenly found my post to be stereo typing, you were blind to the stereotypes propagated in this forum for a long time.
You are wrong here. Do you know that companies like TCS/INFY/Wipro offer �blended rates� in the range of $20+/hr for keeping over 70% of staff offshore? Client directly benefits here. I have seen hypocritical companies that took tax benefits from local governments like cities and counties (which came at the expense of property taxes paid by residents of those localities) for job creation and then turned around and outsourced the very same jobs that they were supposed to create to TCS/Wipro/INFY etc., often dismissing the existing contractor pool/employees which involved people of all nationalities including H1-b workers like �TN Man� who couldn�t compete with the $30+ rates for the on-shore workers even if something was available from these vendors. Now to dump people at $30/hr rate, even though talent is locally available - like "TN Man", these vendors will abuse H1 and L1 by securing as many of these visas as they can( which were intended to bring the best and the brightest for american companies), causing Bill Gates to advocate for unlimited H1-bs when in reality, what he needs is a few thousand H1-bs which should be available in normal circumstances, had these companies not been poaching those visas.
So these offshore companies circumvented the prevailing wages through an industrial practice that should be considered �dumping�, where they dumped green-horns for the greedy clients, because the green-horns don�t have to go through any interviews in exchange of the very low rates. In this case, the people dismissed from the company/contractors were a lot more skilled, yet managers like me would be forced to start from scratch with the new pool, often resulting in delays for strategic initiatives at these companies, but the bean counters at the top never care, since their horizon is the next quarterly earning release, not what the company would do 2 years down the line (and some of these companies are the culprits behind financial crisis today with their very myopic thinking, just a sample was illustrated above)
The only jobs that were created in those localities due to such corporations in exchange for tax credits often were Indian Grocery shops opening in that locality to cater to those folks from offshore vendors. :D BTW, I don't have anything against them, I like Indian food.
I have worked with companies where I managed a 50+ member team to execute a project which at another company employing local workforce may have been done with a 12-15 person team (I have managed it both ways and hence I know that as a fact). Now the company employing the 50+ member team will often massage the numbers to show that they saved $x differential per person* 50 for the bean counters and would have secured bonuses for the higher ups because of those paper savings.
Now I think as a result of people like me interacting with US law-makers, they are getting the true picture of the abuse going on with the current processes. I understand many of you here are concerned about your own career and eventually settling in US, but once you become a permanent resident or US Citizen, you are going to face the same realities. I have seen Indian-americans who went through the GC/Citizenship process becoming some of the the fiercest critics of the current system, because (like "TN Man"), their livelihoods also are threatened by the current process. They suddenly understand that it has nothing to do with the so-called "skill" or "talent" shortage, it has everything to do with what your hourly billing rate is.
Hey fool Hunter.... you are a bloody illegal in this country get out of here if you don�t know history ask your grand father. First do some thing about your illegal status and then talk about India. You are cultured less brut, I repeat cultured less brut. Its damn real that your youngsters are doing only three things drinking, sex, crime...
Thank you for admitting most of what I stated here true. Actually all of what I stated here as �skills� are based on my experience in IT management over the last decade. If you suddenly found my post to be stereo typing, you were blind to the stereotypes propagated in this forum for a long time.
You are wrong here. Do you know that companies like TCS/INFY/Wipro offer �blended rates� in the range of $20+/hr for keeping over 70% of staff offshore? Client directly benefits here. I have seen hypocritical companies that took tax benefits from local governments like cities and counties (which came at the expense of property taxes paid by residents of those localities) for job creation and then turned around and outsourced the very same jobs that they were supposed to create to TCS/Wipro/INFY etc., often dismissing the existing contractor pool/employees which involved people of all nationalities including H1-b workers like �TN Man� who couldn�t compete with the $30+ rates for the on-shore workers even if something was available from these vendors. Now to dump people at $30/hr rate, even though talent is locally available - like "TN Man", these vendors will abuse H1 and L1 by securing as many of these visas as they can( which were intended to bring the best and the brightest for american companies), causing Bill Gates to advocate for unlimited H1-bs when in reality, what he needs is a few thousand H1-bs which should be available in normal circumstances, had these companies not been poaching those visas.
So these offshore companies circumvented the prevailing wages through an industrial practice that should be considered �dumping�, where they dumped green-horns for the greedy clients, because the green-horns don�t have to go through any interviews in exchange of the very low rates. In this case, the people dismissed from the company/contractors were a lot more skilled, yet managers like me would be forced to start from scratch with the new pool, often resulting in delays for strategic initiatives at these companies, but the bean counters at the top never care, since their horizon is the next quarterly earning release, not what the company would do 2 years down the line (and some of these companies are the culprits behind financial crisis today with their very myopic thinking, just a sample was illustrated above)
The only jobs that were created in those localities due to such corporations in exchange for tax credits often were Indian Grocery shops opening in that locality to cater to those folks from offshore vendors. :D BTW, I don't have anything against them, I like Indian food.
I have worked with companies where I managed a 50+ member team to execute a project which at another company employing local workforce may have been done with a 12-15 person team (I have managed it both ways and hence I know that as a fact). Now the company employing the 50+ member team will often massage the numbers to show that they saved $x differential per person* 50 for the bean counters and would have secured bonuses for the higher ups because of those paper savings.
Now I think as a result of people like me interacting with US law-makers, they are getting the true picture of the abuse going on with the current processes. I understand many of you here are concerned about your own career and eventually settling in US, but once you become a permanent resident or US Citizen, you are going to face the same realities. I have seen Indian-americans who went through the GC/Citizenship process becoming some of the the fiercest critics of the current system, because (like "TN Man"), their livelihoods also are threatened by the current process. They suddenly understand that it has nothing to do with the so-called "skill" or "talent" shortage, it has everything to do with what your hourly billing rate is.
2011 Google Chrome icon in
IneedAllGreen
06-29 03:42 PM
I think Matthew Oh should closed his site to do some actual work.
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
6/29/2007: EB-Visa Number Retrogression?
* There is a rumor going around that the State Department will issue a revised Visa Bulletin for July 2007 next Monday (July 2) or Tuesday (July 3) and that it may show retrogression of some or all EB categories, very likely to the point of unavailable for the month of July! Please stay tuned.
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
6/29/2007: EB-Visa Number Retrogression?
* There is a rumor going around that the State Department will issue a revised Visa Bulletin for July 2007 next Monday (July 2) or Tuesday (July 3) and that it may show retrogression of some or all EB categories, very likely to the point of unavailable for the month of July! Please stay tuned.
more...
rajuseattle
04-06 12:23 AM
GC_info:
YOU can apply her AP with the instructions to deliver the AP to nearby US consulate in India. Upon AP approval, she can go and collect her AP from the consulate and come back using AP.
YOU can apply her AP with the instructions to deliver the AP to nearby US consulate in India. Upon AP approval, she can go and collect her AP from the consulate and come back using AP.
gene77
08-20 01:53 PM
I'm at Oct 2004 (EB3-I), 35 years for me .... you don't say!
No seriously guys, 'spatial' brings up a good point; the laws are up for interpretation by the USCIS.
No seriously guys, 'spatial' brings up a good point; the laws are up for interpretation by the USCIS.
more...
Caliber
06-17 01:02 PM
IMO, stopping and working against fraud can be a bullet point in IV's portfolio. It could help IV while discussing issues with lawmakers.
My 2 cents.
Dear HSingh82, You are right.. This will give IV great advantage when talking to law makers as we can advocate that we are against ILLEGAL things done by any one.
My 2 cents.
Dear HSingh82, You are right.. This will give IV great advantage when talking to law makers as we can advocate that we are against ILLEGAL things done by any one.
2010 Subscribe to Google Blog
GCisLottery
06-29 04:45 PM
If the rumor turns out to be true in two days, I strongly believe it's a conspiracy.
When the CIR was revived, there was a strong feeling that the senate will pass based on the negotiations. Since CIR is horrible for those who are currently in line(including us), somebody/some group panicked and triggered the bulletin.
Now that CIR is officially dead and buried, status-quo is OK, so thought that somebody/some group.
Oh well....
I only pity the H4s out there.
When the CIR was revived, there was a strong feeling that the senate will pass based on the negotiations. Since CIR is horrible for those who are currently in line(including us), somebody/some group panicked and triggered the bulletin.
Now that CIR is officially dead and buried, status-quo is OK, so thought that somebody/some group.
Oh well....
I only pity the H4s out there.
more...
immigrationvoice1
04-17 03:33 PM
I have sent an email to the id listed on that site (osccrt@usdoj.gov)with emails from Capital One which says they are not in favor of EADs. Will update once I hear back.
Here is the response for my email sent earlier which I received today. Advices are welcome:
Dear Mr. xxxxx:
Thank you for your e-mail inquiry received by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") on March 25, 2008. You inquired whether or not an employer engages in unlawful citizenship status discrimination if the employer rejects an applicant for employment because the applicant possesses an H-1B visa and a valid "EAD".
OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. The Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, unfair documentary practices with respect to verification of employment eligibility, and retaliation. Citizenship status discrimination occurs when individuals are rejected for employment or fired because they are U.S. citizens or because of their immigration status or type of work authorization. The Act does not protect all groups of workers from citizenship status discrimination. U.S. citizens, most permanent residents and temporary residents, asylees, and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. Other classifications of workers like H-1B visa holders are not protected from citizenship status discrimination.
It is not possible to determine whether you suffered unlawful citizenship status discrimination based on the information you provided in your e-mail. If you believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination, you or your representative may file a charge of citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee directly with OSC. OSC will review your complete charge and investigate to determine whether there is reason to believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination in violation of 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. For more information on the charge filing process, please visit our website at - http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc. In addition, individuals may download the charge form from this website. Please note that charges of discrimination must be filed within 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. You may send the completed charge form to OSC via facsimile at (202) 616-5509, or by first-class mail to: Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices; 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; NYAV Building, 9th Floor; Washington, D.C. 20530.
Thank you once again for your correspondence. We hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding immigration-related unfair employment practices, you may contact OSC at 1-800-255-8155 (toll-free).
Here is the response for my email sent earlier which I received today. Advices are welcome:
Dear Mr. xxxxx:
Thank you for your e-mail inquiry received by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC") on March 25, 2008. You inquired whether or not an employer engages in unlawful citizenship status discrimination if the employer rejects an applicant for employment because the applicant possesses an H-1B visa and a valid "EAD".
OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. The Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, unfair documentary practices with respect to verification of employment eligibility, and retaliation. Citizenship status discrimination occurs when individuals are rejected for employment or fired because they are U.S. citizens or because of their immigration status or type of work authorization. The Act does not protect all groups of workers from citizenship status discrimination. U.S. citizens, most permanent residents and temporary residents, asylees, and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. Other classifications of workers like H-1B visa holders are not protected from citizenship status discrimination.
It is not possible to determine whether you suffered unlawful citizenship status discrimination based on the information you provided in your e-mail. If you believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination, you or your representative may file a charge of citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee directly with OSC. OSC will review your complete charge and investigate to determine whether there is reason to believe you have suffered citizenship status discrimination in violation of 8 U.S.C. � 1324b. For more information on the charge filing process, please visit our website at - http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc. In addition, individuals may download the charge form from this website. Please note that charges of discrimination must be filed within 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. You may send the completed charge form to OSC via facsimile at (202) 616-5509, or by first-class mail to: Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices; 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; NYAV Building, 9th Floor; Washington, D.C. 20530.
Thank you once again for your correspondence. We hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding immigration-related unfair employment practices, you may contact OSC at 1-800-255-8155 (toll-free).
hair My fashion Blog ICON!
gk_2000
04-01 01:20 PM
Thanks Admin.Most people know here that reds and greens have much to do with admins here.
Yes, because there was no other way I could rack up 2300 minus points. I find this game as silly as it is irritating, but letting them know it doesn't work with me anymore. Yeh unka bachpana ka nishana hei.. They're just being kiddish
Yes, because there was no other way I could rack up 2300 minus points. I find this game as silly as it is irritating, but letting them know it doesn't work with me anymore. Yeh unka bachpana ka nishana hei.. They're just being kiddish
more...
DannyBoy
02-21 06:57 PM
Guys, i have been trying to find some information on this but i can't seem to find any thing relevant.
I have been in the US since 2001. I came in on a F1 and then moved to a H1 and then my employer filed for my greencard and i now have an EAD and AP that is employment based. My last entry into the US was based on my AP.
I recently got married and my wife is a US citizen. I was wondering if it makes sense to apply for a family based AOS concurrently since the employment based AOS takes a long time to be processed. If this possible? and if so how do i go about doing this?
My apologies if this topic has already been covered, i tried searching the forums but could not find any similar topics.
Appreciate the help.
I have been in the US since 2001. I came in on a F1 and then moved to a H1 and then my employer filed for my greencard and i now have an EAD and AP that is employment based. My last entry into the US was based on my AP.
I recently got married and my wife is a US citizen. I was wondering if it makes sense to apply for a family based AOS concurrently since the employment based AOS takes a long time to be processed. If this possible? and if so how do i go about doing this?
My apologies if this topic has already been covered, i tried searching the forums but could not find any similar topics.
Appreciate the help.
hot icon for Google#39;s Blogger
BharatPremi
03-25 04:41 PM
The employer will come up with many excuses to not interview a candidate or hire. If the law doesn't allow you to discriminate when hiring based on national origin or EAD or whatever, rejecting candidates even for an interview doesn't make sense.
Interview is part of the hiring and recruiting processes. Would you say employers putting a job ad saying we will only interview someone from a particular nationality is allowed?
However, the more important point is we are fighting to get multi-year EAD in IV among other things. The law doesn't allow discrimination based on EAD for hiring. Let the govt lawyers and employers figure it out if not even interviewing candidates because of EAD comes under the purview of hiring or not and if it is legal or not.
yes, that is our line of logic and understanding. But seeing the number of experiences what we are having in real world, this does not seem to be applying. You are rightaway asked about your work status and they insist till you give them "specific" word - either "GC" or "Citizenship" or "EAD"... If this would have been the real way ( I and all of us wishes that) the these recruiting guys may not dare to insist till you spit the speific word out and that is before interviewing. In my experience, I always had verbal conversation. I have never been sent an email or letter by any company yet regarding their refusal not to even interview me based on EAD. Verbally 5 companies have starightaway told me "they are not considering me as I do not have green card yet - EAD is not enough". My thinking is that they do this because somehow some law may be covering them, we do not know that but they know that, perhaps..:confused:
Interview is part of the hiring and recruiting processes. Would you say employers putting a job ad saying we will only interview someone from a particular nationality is allowed?
However, the more important point is we are fighting to get multi-year EAD in IV among other things. The law doesn't allow discrimination based on EAD for hiring. Let the govt lawyers and employers figure it out if not even interviewing candidates because of EAD comes under the purview of hiring or not and if it is legal or not.
yes, that is our line of logic and understanding. But seeing the number of experiences what we are having in real world, this does not seem to be applying. You are rightaway asked about your work status and they insist till you give them "specific" word - either "GC" or "Citizenship" or "EAD"... If this would have been the real way ( I and all of us wishes that) the these recruiting guys may not dare to insist till you spit the speific word out and that is before interviewing. In my experience, I always had verbal conversation. I have never been sent an email or letter by any company yet regarding their refusal not to even interview me based on EAD. Verbally 5 companies have starightaway told me "they are not considering me as I do not have green card yet - EAD is not enough". My thinking is that they do this because somehow some law may be covering them, we do not know that but they know that, perhaps..:confused:
more...
house google-chrome-icon-250px
485Mbe4001
08-22 02:56 PM
clarification from Ron Gotchers site about Sept Visa bulletin:- no progress for EB3 I/C..write letters...call, do whatever you can to highlight the issue
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5984&page=3
My interpretation was wrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I got back in response to my inquiry:
Quote:
Yes I probably should have said Worldwide Employment Third. My primary concern at this point is with the China E3 cut-off date which has an extremely large amount of demand.
My earlier understanding was clearly wrong. He was referring to worldwide third preference. This clarification also expresses concern that China E3 has very large demand. This, in turn, means that China E3 is not likely to move forward very quickly due to heavy demand.
__________________
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5984&page=3
My interpretation was wrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I got back in response to my inquiry:
Quote:
Yes I probably should have said Worldwide Employment Third. My primary concern at this point is with the China E3 cut-off date which has an extremely large amount of demand.
My earlier understanding was clearly wrong. He was referring to worldwide third preference. This clarification also expresses concern that China E3 has very large demand. This, in turn, means that China E3 is not likely to move forward very quickly due to heavy demand.
__________________
tattoo Social Media Bookmark Icon
gc28262
09-24 11:10 AM
Something is screwed up.....
Mexico has over 2000 cases in April 2001 yet its PD is May 1st 2001
India has less 500 cases in April 2001 yet its PD is Apr 15 2001
This along with CIS giving "bad/incorrect" data to IV is indication of someone's malicious intentions.
I appreciate IV's effort in getting FOIA executed and now working on aftermath of it.
For people who are angered with whats been going on in last couple of days. All I can say is to try volunteering for IV even for a month.
The missing link is Consular Processing cases pending under DOS.
Mexico has over 2000 cases in April 2001 yet its PD is May 1st 2001
India has less 500 cases in April 2001 yet its PD is Apr 15 2001
This along with CIS giving "bad/incorrect" data to IV is indication of someone's malicious intentions.
I appreciate IV's effort in getting FOIA executed and now working on aftermath of it.
For people who are angered with whats been going on in last couple of days. All I can say is to try volunteering for IV even for a month.
The missing link is Consular Processing cases pending under DOS.
more...
pictures Download your log Icon
BharatPremi
09-24 06:24 PM
I completely agree with your last 2 lines. But I don't agree with the even dividing of the number into 5 categories of I,P,C,M,ROW.
Let's take an example. Suppose for some odd coincidence....the first 8000 odd EB3 apps that USCIS processes starting Oct 1.....none are from I,P,C,M. Suppose First 2500 are from Uk, next 2500 from France, next 2500 Germany and the next 508 from Pakistan. Now the number for ROW at this point would be 8008. Now they get another app from UK next. Will they refuse to process that app as the ROW figure had reached? Then they will still process more than 2500 for I,P,C,M. Won't that be unfair to UK applicants.
As I have said a couple of times now, and so have a few others - ROW cannot be capped at X/5. Due to the high demand from I,P,C,M....it likely gets a MINIMUM of (100 - (7 X 4)) X EB3 cap.
That was a ateempt to establish a "fair assumtion" so It may be wrong. But simultaneously you also should not assume FIFO within EB-ROW as you tried to explain as we really do not know whether USCIS follows FIFO.. Bottomline USCIS, by law, can not exceed 9% limit for any ROW based countries (Britain, pakistan,...) as well.
Let's take an example. Suppose for some odd coincidence....the first 8000 odd EB3 apps that USCIS processes starting Oct 1.....none are from I,P,C,M. Suppose First 2500 are from Uk, next 2500 from France, next 2500 Germany and the next 508 from Pakistan. Now the number for ROW at this point would be 8008. Now they get another app from UK next. Will they refuse to process that app as the ROW figure had reached? Then they will still process more than 2500 for I,P,C,M. Won't that be unfair to UK applicants.
As I have said a couple of times now, and so have a few others - ROW cannot be capped at X/5. Due to the high demand from I,P,C,M....it likely gets a MINIMUM of (100 - (7 X 4)) X EB3 cap.
That was a ateempt to establish a "fair assumtion" so It may be wrong. But simultaneously you also should not assume FIFO within EB-ROW as you tried to explain as we really do not know whether USCIS follows FIFO.. Bottomline USCIS, by law, can not exceed 9% limit for any ROW based countries (Britain, pakistan,...) as well.
dresses Image source:Google blog
abuddyz
01-22 05:09 PM
When is your interview and where? Will this be your first stamping?
my interview is on feb 1st week and at mumbai.. it will be my second stamping.. my current H1 is approved in April 2007
my interview is on feb 1st week and at mumbai.. it will be my second stamping.. my current H1 is approved in April 2007
more...
makeup Google+search+icon Blog
bp333
03-10 01:12 PM
Hello every one,
I am starting this thread for all of us not to just think about the GC process. If any one is residing here for 10 years without GC, think about making a law which can lead us to Citizenship. My thoughts on this:
Many of our colleagues who landed with us during the late 90s (1998, 1999) and early 2000, who got their GC without any issues are now Citizens or waiting to become Citizen soon.
What is our status?. Just think. Still we are strugling to get the GC. Even by law change, if we are getting the GC this year (by GOD's Grace), then we need to wait for another 5 years from now (approximately 2014). Many persons like me who have come to this Country in their later career will be very much affected due to this delay (we have lot of other issues like the dependents reaching the age of 21 etc., College, University fees etc.,).
Core team and every one, please consider this and try to lobby for getting the citizenship without further wait if the persons satisfy the folowing conditions:
1. If they are legally here for 10 years (With approved I-140 and waiting for Adjustment of Status without current date).
2. If they have earned full 40 points in Social Security
3. If they have paid the tax continuously for 10 years
4. If they own a house and paying Mortgage (adding weightage to the Economy boost)
and
5. If they do not have any criminal records in these 10 years.
Please again do not just concentrate on the GC issues. Consider this and if any one can come with a letter draft with legal openion, we can send it to all Congress members, State Governers etc.,
Hope the members and the Core team consider this issue. I have one more thread on this, which I started some months back but the response was not that good. If every one of us unite on this and raise this to the Congress, I think the new Government may consider as this is very genuine.
Agree with this approach. I'd rather ask big and settle for less than ask for less and settle for nothing! We really need to emphasize the point that we have been here for years legally paying taxes, other fees imposed on us NOT knowing the end state. Remember only the squeaky wheel gets the greese. More over there is never a good time, at least I have not seen one in the past 13 years, time always bring new challenges and issues but unless we speak up we dont make it to their priority list for consideration.
I am starting this thread for all of us not to just think about the GC process. If any one is residing here for 10 years without GC, think about making a law which can lead us to Citizenship. My thoughts on this:
Many of our colleagues who landed with us during the late 90s (1998, 1999) and early 2000, who got their GC without any issues are now Citizens or waiting to become Citizen soon.
What is our status?. Just think. Still we are strugling to get the GC. Even by law change, if we are getting the GC this year (by GOD's Grace), then we need to wait for another 5 years from now (approximately 2014). Many persons like me who have come to this Country in their later career will be very much affected due to this delay (we have lot of other issues like the dependents reaching the age of 21 etc., College, University fees etc.,).
Core team and every one, please consider this and try to lobby for getting the citizenship without further wait if the persons satisfy the folowing conditions:
1. If they are legally here for 10 years (With approved I-140 and waiting for Adjustment of Status without current date).
2. If they have earned full 40 points in Social Security
3. If they have paid the tax continuously for 10 years
4. If they own a house and paying Mortgage (adding weightage to the Economy boost)
and
5. If they do not have any criminal records in these 10 years.
Please again do not just concentrate on the GC issues. Consider this and if any one can come with a letter draft with legal openion, we can send it to all Congress members, State Governers etc.,
Hope the members and the Core team consider this issue. I have one more thread on this, which I started some months back but the response was not that good. If every one of us unite on this and raise this to the Congress, I think the new Government may consider as this is very genuine.
Agree with this approach. I'd rather ask big and settle for less than ask for less and settle for nothing! We really need to emphasize the point that we have been here for years legally paying taxes, other fees imposed on us NOT knowing the end state. Remember only the squeaky wheel gets the greese. More over there is never a good time, at least I have not seen one in the past 13 years, time always bring new challenges and issues but unless we speak up we dont make it to their priority list for consideration.
girlfriend Image courtesy: Google blog
jasmin45
12-08 09:16 AM
Great job MACACA! you are the man!
These are interesting facts.
These are interesting facts.
hairstyles MyRealPage.com - Blog /
abuddyz
01-28 04:55 PM
I came across a couple who got their H1B approvals last yr with in 3 weeks to each other. One of them was in PIMS and other one not. So I feel approval date does not seem to be a criteria to base these delays upon.:confused:
Good Luck to everyone including myself!:(
both H1 were approved from the same USCIS center? the one which is stuck in PIMS, which service center it was?
Good Luck to everyone including myself!:(
both H1 were approved from the same USCIS center? the one which is stuck in PIMS, which service center it was?
chanduv23
06-18 11:39 AM
No - I am not suggesting that!!
What I am suggesting is that the right time to take this up is when a recession is not in full swing. Between 2004 (when this law was enacted) and 2007 was a great time to pick this battle. Maybe another year down the line would also be a great time to pick it. Picking up this particular battle right now would probably make YOUR and MY lives much more difficult in the medium term.
Like you and the OP - I am a selfish individual. I will pick up only those fights which are in my interest. I believe that this particular fight is a lose-lose proposition in the current climate. I am disputing your (and OPs) belief that this will be beneficial for you/me/rest of us.
Lets take the example of the same Goldman Sachs manager. Tomorrow ICE comes to him and says you need to get rid of these 50 guys under you. What will he do? He cant increase the budget in the current environment. So he probably will hire a couple of GC holders/Citizens and replaces the whole division (with 50 GC/Citizens besides the 50 'violators') with an offshore team.
Think about it!!
Now is the time when everybody is thinking in terms of cost cutting. If you create costly disruptions now - then either the company becomes GM and lose out to overseas competitors or migrates the eitire division out.
Your reasoning is weak. If the same Goldman manager wants to screw you - he won't see if it is recession or not - he will screw you - period.
What happens with ICE and goldman is an issue they sort it out. If his budget is tight - he will figure out a way.
As far as jobs are concerned - there is no gaurantee that the best and brightest is always in jobs or those who suck up always have jobs - YOU are responsible on how you choose and carve your career
What I am suggesting is that the right time to take this up is when a recession is not in full swing. Between 2004 (when this law was enacted) and 2007 was a great time to pick this battle. Maybe another year down the line would also be a great time to pick it. Picking up this particular battle right now would probably make YOUR and MY lives much more difficult in the medium term.
Like you and the OP - I am a selfish individual. I will pick up only those fights which are in my interest. I believe that this particular fight is a lose-lose proposition in the current climate. I am disputing your (and OPs) belief that this will be beneficial for you/me/rest of us.
Lets take the example of the same Goldman Sachs manager. Tomorrow ICE comes to him and says you need to get rid of these 50 guys under you. What will he do? He cant increase the budget in the current environment. So he probably will hire a couple of GC holders/Citizens and replaces the whole division (with 50 GC/Citizens besides the 50 'violators') with an offshore team.
Think about it!!
Now is the time when everybody is thinking in terms of cost cutting. If you create costly disruptions now - then either the company becomes GM and lose out to overseas competitors or migrates the eitire division out.
Your reasoning is weak. If the same Goldman manager wants to screw you - he won't see if it is recession or not - he will screw you - period.
What happens with ICE and goldman is an issue they sort it out. If his budget is tight - he will figure out a way.
As far as jobs are concerned - there is no gaurantee that the best and brightest is always in jobs or those who suck up always have jobs - YOU are responsible on how you choose and carve your career
morchu
06-16 11:42 PM
No I don't. You basically don't want to keep the door open wide. Once you are IN you want the door to be closed. You don't worry about loosing US jobs to India/China, but you don't want Indians/Chinese to enter USA and enjoy the "quality of life" you enjoy here.
Nobody enters USA to live a "low profile" life.
You are getting dangerously accustomed to the "taking things for granted" style. You are loosing your competitive skills.
I personally know that more energetic people coming in is kind of dangerous even for my job safety-net (basically I cannot take things for granted). But I still have not learned to think beyond humanity, and I believe sharing is good. The new guys also deserve the chance for American dream.
And I don't forget that I was also once in H1B, and came with a lot of dreams and skills.
However, my point is, if you want to outsource take the job to the low wage country. Do not bring low wages here. I am ok if outsourcing would increase because of the Grassley bill. I am not ok if the low wages are dumped in here. I hope you people see the difference.
Nobody enters USA to live a "low profile" life.
You are getting dangerously accustomed to the "taking things for granted" style. You are loosing your competitive skills.
I personally know that more energetic people coming in is kind of dangerous even for my job safety-net (basically I cannot take things for granted). But I still have not learned to think beyond humanity, and I believe sharing is good. The new guys also deserve the chance for American dream.
And I don't forget that I was also once in H1B, and came with a lot of dreams and skills.
However, my point is, if you want to outsource take the job to the low wage country. Do not bring low wages here. I am ok if outsourcing would increase because of the Grassley bill. I am not ok if the low wages are dumped in here. I hope you people see the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment