panky72
08-20 06:55 PM
An old man lived alone in Minnesota. He wanted to spade his potato garden, but it was very hard work. His only son, who would have helped him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and mentioned his situation:
Dear Son,
" I am feeling pretty bad because it looks like I won't be able to plant my potato garden this year. I hate to miss doing the garden, because your mother always loved planting time. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. If you were here, all my troubles would be over. I know you would dig the plot for me, if you weren't in prison
............. ......... .......Love, Dad "
Shortly, the old man received this telegram : "For Heaven's sake, Dad, don't dig up the garden!! That's where I buried the GUNS!!"
At 4 a.m. the next morning, a dozen FBI agents and local police officers showed up and dug up the entire garden without finding any guns.
Confused, the old man wrote another note to his son telling him what happened, and asked him what to do.
His son's reply was: "Go ahead and plant your potatoes, Dad......... ...... It's the best I could do for you from here."
Moral:
NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN THE WORLD, IF YOU HAVE DECIDED TO DO
SOMETHING DEEP FROM YOUR HEART, YOU CAN DO IT. IT IS THE THOUGHT THAT MATTERS NOT WHERE YOU ARE OR WHERE THE PERSON IS.
Dear Son,
" I am feeling pretty bad because it looks like I won't be able to plant my potato garden this year. I hate to miss doing the garden, because your mother always loved planting time. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. If you were here, all my troubles would be over. I know you would dig the plot for me, if you weren't in prison
............. ......... .......Love, Dad "
Shortly, the old man received this telegram : "For Heaven's sake, Dad, don't dig up the garden!! That's where I buried the GUNS!!"
At 4 a.m. the next morning, a dozen FBI agents and local police officers showed up and dug up the entire garden without finding any guns.
Confused, the old man wrote another note to his son telling him what happened, and asked him what to do.
His son's reply was: "Go ahead and plant your potatoes, Dad......... ...... It's the best I could do for you from here."
Moral:
NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN THE WORLD, IF YOU HAVE DECIDED TO DO
SOMETHING DEEP FROM YOUR HEART, YOU CAN DO IT. IT IS THE THOUGHT THAT MATTERS NOT WHERE YOU ARE OR WHERE THE PERSON IS.
wallpaper Free Mobile Wallpapers Free
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
bfadlia
01-09 06:15 PM
The question is about common sense and not who said what... Israel might make mistakes but it has no need to bomb civilians or school compounds deliberately. It is a strong enough country that can wipe out the entire middle-east if it chose to but it does not do so probably because it isn't a failed state with an inferiority complex like most of its neighbors.
a common sense guy like you would have dismissed iraqis claims of abuse in abu gharib.. america is a strong country, it doesn't need to molest prisoners..
how luxurious for you to use ur common sense while victims still suffer after their stories were corobrated by unbiased witnesses
a common sense guy like you would have dismissed iraqis claims of abuse in abu gharib.. america is a strong country, it doesn't need to molest prisoners..
how luxurious for you to use ur common sense while victims still suffer after their stories were corobrated by unbiased witnesses
2011 Free Mobile Phone Wallpapers,
NKR
08-06 03:48 PM
No one can guarantee that. and that is the whole concept of "preference categories" . So now its ok for A to jump to EB2 and leapfrog everyone with his/her 2002 PD? Does 5 years of work have that much value? He/She would be ahead of 2003 EB2 filers that may have been working on degrees since 1999. That's ok by you? The faster movement of EB2 makes up for the years of education. I say, by all means BS+5 shoudl file EB2, I just don't agree with the porting. That PD was for an entirely different skill set and job. I know its the law. I still disagree. Can do that last I knew :-)
Are you pascal with a different ID by any chance? :), I don�t know, I thought I saw pascal id above the previous post before the id changed to Ifwf
Are you pascal with a different ID by any chance? :), I don�t know, I thought I saw pascal id above the previous post before the id changed to Ifwf
more...
unitednations
03-24 07:56 PM
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/98/98-60340.CV0.wpd.pdf
Above case is the most frequent cited case by california/vermont service center and appeals office in denying h-1b's.
Essentially; many years ago a nurse staffing agency was filing h-1b's and they were doing it for a specific set of nurses which actually required a degree (most nurses do not require a degree).
The staffing agency was using one of the ways to demonstrate that the job required a degree (which is listed in 8 cfr 214.2h) that it normally hired nurses with degrees. Essentially; they were trying to circumvent h-1b for jobs that normally didn't require degrees.
USCIS and the courts basically stated that if a person is not working at your location then you are considered a "token" employer and that the job requirements of where you are actually working is what needs to be demonstrated to see if the job requires a degree.
Most of h-1b rfe's are trying to determine whether the petitioner is the employer or the agent (they ask for office information, project details and intertwine it to whether you have specailty occupation work at your location) or if the information on your payroll reports; your office size, pictures, etc., show that you are an agent. If they believe that you are an agent then they go the purchase order route.
Now; uscis is totally misapplying this because h-1b is simple; job requreis a degree and person has that degree. In this particular case; nursing agency was trying to create a degree requirement for job that normally doesn't require one.
However; they are applying this standard to all the staffing companies. I would read it and memorize it as this is quoted in every one of the denials.
Above case is the most frequent cited case by california/vermont service center and appeals office in denying h-1b's.
Essentially; many years ago a nurse staffing agency was filing h-1b's and they were doing it for a specific set of nurses which actually required a degree (most nurses do not require a degree).
The staffing agency was using one of the ways to demonstrate that the job required a degree (which is listed in 8 cfr 214.2h) that it normally hired nurses with degrees. Essentially; they were trying to circumvent h-1b for jobs that normally didn't require degrees.
USCIS and the courts basically stated that if a person is not working at your location then you are considered a "token" employer and that the job requirements of where you are actually working is what needs to be demonstrated to see if the job requires a degree.
Most of h-1b rfe's are trying to determine whether the petitioner is the employer or the agent (they ask for office information, project details and intertwine it to whether you have specailty occupation work at your location) or if the information on your payroll reports; your office size, pictures, etc., show that you are an agent. If they believe that you are an agent then they go the purchase order route.
Now; uscis is totally misapplying this because h-1b is simple; job requreis a degree and person has that degree. In this particular case; nursing agency was trying to create a degree requirement for job that normally doesn't require one.
However; they are applying this standard to all the staffing companies. I would read it and memorize it as this is quoted in every one of the denials.
Macaca
05-27 05:20 PM
U.S. Probes Infosys Over Visas (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576343070058872708.html) By MIRIAM JORDAN | Wall Street Journal
U.S. authorities are investigating whether an Indian software giant repeatedly violated American visa laws in order to place its own foreign employees in temporary jobs at some big corporate clients in the U.S.
The probe is examining whether Infosys Technologies Ltd. used inexpensive, easy-to-obtain visas meant to cover short-term business visits to the U.S.�instead of the appropriate, but harder to get, work visas�to bring in an unknown number of its employees for longer-term stays, according to people familiar with the matter.
These so-called B-1 business visas are intended for foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for purposes such as attending business conventions, consulting with business associates or installing machinery.
A State Department spokeswoman said the department is investigating Bangalore-based Infosys but declined further comment.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said ICE agents had visited Infosys's U.S. offices. However, she said that "as a matter of policy, the agency can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation."
In a statement Tuesday, Infosys said it "received a subpoena from a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The subpoena requires us to provide information to the grand jury regarding our sponsorships for, and uses of, B-1 business visas."
In a filing Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it "intends to comply with the subpoena and to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation."
Infosys is best known as an outsourcing company that provides India-based computing and other technology services to Western clients. But it also boasts thousands of U.S.-based employees who develop and install software for back-office accounting, logistics and supply-chain management for companies in the retail, finance and manufacturing industries. Infosys doesn't disclose the identity of its clients.
The visa investigation comes amid a national debate in the U.S. over whether foreign workers, particularly in the software sector, are displacing qualified Americans because they are cheaper to employ.
The investigation has spurred the government to say it intends to tighten visa regulations to close loopholes that critics say enable employers to abuse the immigration system.
The probe was sparked by a lawsuit filed in Alabama state court earlier this year by an Infosys employee named Jack "Jay" Palmer Jr., alleging that Infosys misused the B-1 visa program. The lawsuit, which was recently moved to federal court, alleges that Infosys should have used a different visa program, known as H-1B, under which high-skilled professionals, such as software developers, are allowed into the U.S. for longer-term work.
The U.S. issues just 65,000 H-1B visas a year, and demand sometimes exceeds supply. H-1Bs take several months to get and can cost upward of $3,000 per individual. The is no cap on B-1 visas, which can be obtained in a matter of days for $140 each.
In a court filing, Infosys, which acknowledges using B-1 visas, denied the lawsuit's allegations that it had abused them.
In an interview, Paul Gottsegen, Infosys's chief marketing officer, said he couldn't comment on a matter before the court, but he added: "We are currently in the midst of a detailed internal review to understand whether we need to change or tighten controls with the visa-application process. We are moving as quickly as possible on this important work."
After learning of Mr. Palmer's lawsuit, Sen. :DChuck Grassley (R, Iowa):D wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, his staff said, citing the suit and demanding an investigation of the B-1 visa program.
"I'm concerned about fraudulent actions that at least one foreign-based company has allegedly been taking in order get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections�.," said the April 14 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Visa fraud can carry penalties of 10 years in prison, in addition to fines. Companies found to violate the terms of a visa program such as H-1B can be temporarily suspended from participating in the program.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Infosys had revenue of $6 billion, about two-thirds of which came from North America. To service its U.S. clients, Infosys has become one of the top users of the H-1B visa program, employing about 10,000 H-1B holders in the U.S., according to its annual report. Other large users of the visas include Microsoft Corp. and Indian tech titans Wipro Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
H-1B visa holders can remain in the U.S. for as long as three years and are paid locally; their employers withhold federal and state income tax. B-1 visa holders are paid by the employer from their home country.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Palmer, a principal consultant at Infosys, alleges that Infosys was affected by the limited number of H-1Bs in 2009 and began using B-1s to circumvent H-1B requirements.
His attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, said: "We are cooperating with investigators from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security."
In March 2010, Mr. Palmer attended meetings in Bangalore, where Infosys officials discussed the need to find "ways to creatively get around the H-1B limitations and process to work the system to increase profits and the value of Infosys' stock," according to the lawsuit. Infosys denies the allegation.
Later, according to Mr. Palmer's complaint, he was asked to prepare letters in support of B-1 applications stating "the employee was coming to the United States for meetings, rather than to work at a job."
After he refused to write such letters, Mr. Palmer was instructed "to keep quiet" by a manager sent from India who confirmed the violations, according to the suit�a claim Infosys denies.
Mr. Palmer reported his concerns to Infosys' corporate counsel, Jeff Friedel, who told him to report them to the company's whistle-blower team, which he did in October 2010, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Friedel didn't reply to a request for comment.
Mr. Palmer's suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for, among other things, breach of terms of employment and emotional distress. Mr. Palmer remains employed by Infosys, but he is not currently doing any work, according to his attorney.
In recent years, Congress has introduced anti-fraud, training and other fees that have significantly raised the price of securing an H-1B visa.
"As Congress has made the H-1B visa category more expensive and more difficult to obtain, companies have searched for alternatives. The B-1 is one such alternative," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University.
"Because the B-1 is nebulous, some companies may be going beyond its intention," he added.
According to State Department regulations, a B-1 visa holder cannot engage in "local employment or labor for hire."
U.S. Moves from Rhetoric to Action on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/25/u-s-moves-from-rhetoric-to-action-on-visas/) By Megha Bahree and Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
What the Infosys Whistleblower Said on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/26/what-the-infosys-whistleblower-said-on-visas/) By Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
U.S. authorities are investigating whether an Indian software giant repeatedly violated American visa laws in order to place its own foreign employees in temporary jobs at some big corporate clients in the U.S.
The probe is examining whether Infosys Technologies Ltd. used inexpensive, easy-to-obtain visas meant to cover short-term business visits to the U.S.�instead of the appropriate, but harder to get, work visas�to bring in an unknown number of its employees for longer-term stays, according to people familiar with the matter.
These so-called B-1 business visas are intended for foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for purposes such as attending business conventions, consulting with business associates or installing machinery.
A State Department spokeswoman said the department is investigating Bangalore-based Infosys but declined further comment.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said ICE agents had visited Infosys's U.S. offices. However, she said that "as a matter of policy, the agency can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation."
In a statement Tuesday, Infosys said it "received a subpoena from a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The subpoena requires us to provide information to the grand jury regarding our sponsorships for, and uses of, B-1 business visas."
In a filing Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it "intends to comply with the subpoena and to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation."
Infosys is best known as an outsourcing company that provides India-based computing and other technology services to Western clients. But it also boasts thousands of U.S.-based employees who develop and install software for back-office accounting, logistics and supply-chain management for companies in the retail, finance and manufacturing industries. Infosys doesn't disclose the identity of its clients.
The visa investigation comes amid a national debate in the U.S. over whether foreign workers, particularly in the software sector, are displacing qualified Americans because they are cheaper to employ.
The investigation has spurred the government to say it intends to tighten visa regulations to close loopholes that critics say enable employers to abuse the immigration system.
The probe was sparked by a lawsuit filed in Alabama state court earlier this year by an Infosys employee named Jack "Jay" Palmer Jr., alleging that Infosys misused the B-1 visa program. The lawsuit, which was recently moved to federal court, alleges that Infosys should have used a different visa program, known as H-1B, under which high-skilled professionals, such as software developers, are allowed into the U.S. for longer-term work.
The U.S. issues just 65,000 H-1B visas a year, and demand sometimes exceeds supply. H-1Bs take several months to get and can cost upward of $3,000 per individual. The is no cap on B-1 visas, which can be obtained in a matter of days for $140 each.
In a court filing, Infosys, which acknowledges using B-1 visas, denied the lawsuit's allegations that it had abused them.
In an interview, Paul Gottsegen, Infosys's chief marketing officer, said he couldn't comment on a matter before the court, but he added: "We are currently in the midst of a detailed internal review to understand whether we need to change or tighten controls with the visa-application process. We are moving as quickly as possible on this important work."
After learning of Mr. Palmer's lawsuit, Sen. :DChuck Grassley (R, Iowa):D wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, his staff said, citing the suit and demanding an investigation of the B-1 visa program.
"I'm concerned about fraudulent actions that at least one foreign-based company has allegedly been taking in order get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections�.," said the April 14 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Visa fraud can carry penalties of 10 years in prison, in addition to fines. Companies found to violate the terms of a visa program such as H-1B can be temporarily suspended from participating in the program.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Infosys had revenue of $6 billion, about two-thirds of which came from North America. To service its U.S. clients, Infosys has become one of the top users of the H-1B visa program, employing about 10,000 H-1B holders in the U.S., according to its annual report. Other large users of the visas include Microsoft Corp. and Indian tech titans Wipro Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
H-1B visa holders can remain in the U.S. for as long as three years and are paid locally; their employers withhold federal and state income tax. B-1 visa holders are paid by the employer from their home country.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Palmer, a principal consultant at Infosys, alleges that Infosys was affected by the limited number of H-1Bs in 2009 and began using B-1s to circumvent H-1B requirements.
His attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, said: "We are cooperating with investigators from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security."
In March 2010, Mr. Palmer attended meetings in Bangalore, where Infosys officials discussed the need to find "ways to creatively get around the H-1B limitations and process to work the system to increase profits and the value of Infosys' stock," according to the lawsuit. Infosys denies the allegation.
Later, according to Mr. Palmer's complaint, he was asked to prepare letters in support of B-1 applications stating "the employee was coming to the United States for meetings, rather than to work at a job."
After he refused to write such letters, Mr. Palmer was instructed "to keep quiet" by a manager sent from India who confirmed the violations, according to the suit�a claim Infosys denies.
Mr. Palmer reported his concerns to Infosys' corporate counsel, Jeff Friedel, who told him to report them to the company's whistle-blower team, which he did in October 2010, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Friedel didn't reply to a request for comment.
Mr. Palmer's suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for, among other things, breach of terms of employment and emotional distress. Mr. Palmer remains employed by Infosys, but he is not currently doing any work, according to his attorney.
In recent years, Congress has introduced anti-fraud, training and other fees that have significantly raised the price of securing an H-1B visa.
"As Congress has made the H-1B visa category more expensive and more difficult to obtain, companies have searched for alternatives. The B-1 is one such alternative," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University.
"Because the B-1 is nebulous, some companies may be going beyond its intention," he added.
According to State Department regulations, a B-1 visa holder cannot engage in "local employment or labor for hire."
U.S. Moves from Rhetoric to Action on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/25/u-s-moves-from-rhetoric-to-action-on-visas/) By Megha Bahree and Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
What the Infosys Whistleblower Said on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/26/what-the-infosys-whistleblower-said-on-visas/) By Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
more...
ssa
07-14 08:00 PM
That's exactly what I was wondering about! Did anybody get a rejection letter from *DOL* advising them to apply in EB3 instead? It's hard for me to believe DOL was ever that helpful!
And if they did not hear it from DOL and did this on their attorney's/employer's advise sending out this letter may spell trouble for the sender. You are basically sending out a signed letter stating that you tried to get labor approved for one category, failed and then applied in a lower category for exactly same job to work your way around the rejection. I'm not sure on how solid legal ground we will be if this be the case. Job requirements are supposed to be what they are and not what is "approvable". Remember recent Fragomen audit?
Now before labeling this as yet another FUD from EB2 please understand that I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't send out the letter. Just that we should consult someone qualified in immigration law to make sure we are not inviting more troubles than what we are already in.
pani,
This is what you have in the draft letter.
"Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003 when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from Top US universities) our green card labors applications were sent back from DOL saying that the economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 NON- RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years."
Do you have any evidence/reference to back this up?
And if they did not hear it from DOL and did this on their attorney's/employer's advise sending out this letter may spell trouble for the sender. You are basically sending out a signed letter stating that you tried to get labor approved for one category, failed and then applied in a lower category for exactly same job to work your way around the rejection. I'm not sure on how solid legal ground we will be if this be the case. Job requirements are supposed to be what they are and not what is "approvable". Remember recent Fragomen audit?
Now before labeling this as yet another FUD from EB2 please understand that I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't send out the letter. Just that we should consult someone qualified in immigration law to make sure we are not inviting more troubles than what we are already in.
pani,
This is what you have in the draft letter.
"Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003 when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from Top US universities) our green card labors applications were sent back from DOL saying that the economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 NON- RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years."
Do you have any evidence/reference to back this up?
2010 Animated wallpaper with girls
masaternyc
05-15 07:41 PM
I think mbdriver is absolutely right, this would stop the exploitation of greedy consultancies and every one gets a fair chance.
more...
delax
07-13 09:48 PM
[QUOTE=kutra;262395]Disclaimer: I am an EB3-Indian with a PD of Oct 2003.
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
I am not trying to convince anybody about the merits. The original post asked for comments which I offered. PL read this post of mine
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
I am not at all surprised at the 'backlash'.
I appreciate your input and candor
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
I am not trying to convince anybody about the merits. The original post asked for comments which I offered. PL read this post of mine
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
I am not at all surprised at the 'backlash'.
I appreciate your input and candor
hair #15 3herosoft DVD to Mobile Phone Suite 3.5.0.0914 Portable
unitednations
07-09 01:03 PM
UN..after I read your story..
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
Just follow the law. There are lots of protections in it for us.
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
Just follow the law. There are lots of protections in it for us.
more...
Administrator2
04-06 09:03 PM
This bill seems to require a labor certification like process for every H1B extension. All of us who have gone through labor certification know how painful the initial data collection is when it comes to proving unavailability of US workers. How many employers will want to or be able to get a labor certification like process done for every H1 extension?
Anti-H1B lobby wants to make the system so difficult that it will be impossible to complete all the requirements. Their strategy is, if they cannot eliminate H-1B program, they will make in non-workable. Also, this bill was in the making for more than two years. They are timing their articles in the press with this bill because of a reason. Don't simply reject it by saying that "this is not going to pass". Taking this bill lightly will be a mistake.
Please inform your friends, colleagues and employer about this very serious problem.
Anti-H1B lobby wants to make the system so difficult that it will be impossible to complete all the requirements. Their strategy is, if they cannot eliminate H-1B program, they will make in non-workable. Also, this bill was in the making for more than two years. They are timing their articles in the press with this bill because of a reason. Don't simply reject it by saying that "this is not going to pass". Taking this bill lightly will be a mistake.
Please inform your friends, colleagues and employer about this very serious problem.
hot animated wallpapers for mobile
chanduv23
03-24 02:14 PM
I had little knowledge of immigration and of the type of people on h-1b and the type of companies who sponsor greencards when I first started perusing immigration boards. I thought many people were like me.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
UN - why do you think USCIS allows
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
UN - why do you think USCIS allows
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
more...
house free animated wallpaper iphone
unitednations
03-26 03:24 PM
UnitedNations,
So whats the way out for people who get into this situation ? Find a job with a non-consulting company and start everything H1/GC from scratch ?
cinqsit
what i have learned is uscis can do anything at any time if they want to.
They have different legal cases that they would use if they thought companies/people were doing things that they didn't like. From all the research/cases I have seen, come across; I concluded that uscis could apply these cases to everyone if they wish.
However; they do not apply it to everyone.
The h-1b defnesor vs. meissner is something that california service center has beendoing for many, many years and everyone has adjusted to it who file through california.
However; vermont never used that case. Now; they are using that case as a justification to deny h-1b's across the board for staffing companies because they think there is a lot of fraud involved in the petitions. Califiornia; doesn't apply the case becasue they think there is fraud but rather they are doing what they think is lawful.
That's why I tell everyone that before you start getting into advoacy; you have to know all the powers that USCIS has and how they can really start making things difficult for everyone.
Right now; they are not using that case on 140's. If they continue to see in 140 filings by a company that there has been more 140's filed then people on payroll (this will generally be the case as consultants come and go and use ac21) then there might be a shift.
In last eight years; most of the public memos issued by uscis have been employee/candidate friendly. However, those memos can change at any time based on economic and political winds.
So whats the way out for people who get into this situation ? Find a job with a non-consulting company and start everything H1/GC from scratch ?
cinqsit
what i have learned is uscis can do anything at any time if they want to.
They have different legal cases that they would use if they thought companies/people were doing things that they didn't like. From all the research/cases I have seen, come across; I concluded that uscis could apply these cases to everyone if they wish.
However; they do not apply it to everyone.
The h-1b defnesor vs. meissner is something that california service center has beendoing for many, many years and everyone has adjusted to it who file through california.
However; vermont never used that case. Now; they are using that case as a justification to deny h-1b's across the board for staffing companies because they think there is a lot of fraud involved in the petitions. Califiornia; doesn't apply the case becasue they think there is fraud but rather they are doing what they think is lawful.
That's why I tell everyone that before you start getting into advoacy; you have to know all the powers that USCIS has and how they can really start making things difficult for everyone.
Right now; they are not using that case on 140's. If they continue to see in 140 filings by a company that there has been more 140's filed then people on payroll (this will generally be the case as consultants come and go and use ac21) then there might be a shift.
In last eight years; most of the public memos issued by uscis have been employee/candidate friendly. However, those memos can change at any time based on economic and political winds.
tattoo free personalized animated
validIV
06-25 12:28 PM
All you and the renters here are doing is speculating. Speculators, from my experience, always buy and sell at the wrong time because all they do is guess. Even if prices do go lower in 2011, speculators will speculate that it will go down further and continue to hold off then miss their chance. Same problem with now in 2009, you missed the low interest rates and who knows when they will come back down to the 4s again. Personally I hope they do come back, cuz I missed a chance to refi one of my properties. You are not only losing your rent money to a landlord, but you are also losing valuable time that you could've used to knock off your mortgage.
As for only putting 20% down and people saying that they want to buy their homes outright� they are idiots. You never pay full price or more than 50% for a home, even if you can afford it. Pay the downpayment, then invest the rest of that money elsewhere and build even more from that money. That is called leverage and thats what good smart investors do. They use the system, they leverage their money and NEVER pay full price. If you have $800,000 and want to buy an $800,000 3 family house, u dont use all ur money on it to pay it all in one shot. You buy 3 or 4 of them, paying 20% down then rent it out, use the rent money to pay the mortgage hold and sell after 20-30 years. Use the rest of the money and invest that in a portfolio or start a business. After 30 years all your properties will be paid off by renters like the people here. You can sell them, give them to your kids, whatever. But don't tell me you're not coming out ahead.
And for the people that are proud to have more than 1 car and paid it all off� a car is not an investment. Unless you buy an antique that you can sell for more than what you paid for, it is not comparable to owning a home. I have a car, it degraded in value the minute i drove it off the lot. Its great for vacations, going around, getting to work whatever. But I am not proud to own a degrading liability even when its been fully paid 5 years after I bought it with no chance of increasing its value.
I have no problems with renters like you or others in this forum. I make money from you. I don't care if you terminate your lease early because another renter will take your place. All renters do is throw away their money and will never get it back. I will use your rent money to pay my mortgage. But don't try to tell me that owning a home is a bad idea. Owning your own home is NEVER a bad idea and 68% of America agrees. You will ALWAYS need a place to live in.
Sledge,
Nobody is saying that the world is coming to and end in 2 years.IMHO myself and many others would agree that long term buying a house makes sense. The question is does buying now if you haven't already bought your primary residential home make any sense.
From the current data, Do you think a guy who buys a house in 2009 would come ahead of somebody who would buys in 2011 when the housing market may have fully bottomed out ? I know its impossible to time the market. But all indicators to name a few below point that home prices should continue to decline.
Unemployment is still on the way up. We will cross 10% anytime soon is a given.
Excess housing inventory
Home prices are still above the trend line. Historically its common for the correction to swing even below the trend line before it stabilizes.
Again IMHO, If you haven't bought a home yet, Save so that you can make a bigger down payment (Own more of the house when you buy one) and check the market again mid 2010.
Giving your example.
Lets say guy buys in 2009, and another guy buys in 2011 (Assuming home prices would have further gone down using existing data points).. Who do you think would come ahead in 2019.
As for only putting 20% down and people saying that they want to buy their homes outright� they are idiots. You never pay full price or more than 50% for a home, even if you can afford it. Pay the downpayment, then invest the rest of that money elsewhere and build even more from that money. That is called leverage and thats what good smart investors do. They use the system, they leverage their money and NEVER pay full price. If you have $800,000 and want to buy an $800,000 3 family house, u dont use all ur money on it to pay it all in one shot. You buy 3 or 4 of them, paying 20% down then rent it out, use the rent money to pay the mortgage hold and sell after 20-30 years. Use the rest of the money and invest that in a portfolio or start a business. After 30 years all your properties will be paid off by renters like the people here. You can sell them, give them to your kids, whatever. But don't tell me you're not coming out ahead.
And for the people that are proud to have more than 1 car and paid it all off� a car is not an investment. Unless you buy an antique that you can sell for more than what you paid for, it is not comparable to owning a home. I have a car, it degraded in value the minute i drove it off the lot. Its great for vacations, going around, getting to work whatever. But I am not proud to own a degrading liability even when its been fully paid 5 years after I bought it with no chance of increasing its value.
I have no problems with renters like you or others in this forum. I make money from you. I don't care if you terminate your lease early because another renter will take your place. All renters do is throw away their money and will never get it back. I will use your rent money to pay my mortgage. But don't try to tell me that owning a home is a bad idea. Owning your own home is NEVER a bad idea and 68% of America agrees. You will ALWAYS need a place to live in.
Sledge,
Nobody is saying that the world is coming to and end in 2 years.IMHO myself and many others would agree that long term buying a house makes sense. The question is does buying now if you haven't already bought your primary residential home make any sense.
From the current data, Do you think a guy who buys a house in 2009 would come ahead of somebody who would buys in 2011 when the housing market may have fully bottomed out ? I know its impossible to time the market. But all indicators to name a few below point that home prices should continue to decline.
Unemployment is still on the way up. We will cross 10% anytime soon is a given.
Excess housing inventory
Home prices are still above the trend line. Historically its common for the correction to swing even below the trend line before it stabilizes.
Again IMHO, If you haven't bought a home yet, Save so that you can make a bigger down payment (Own more of the house when you buy one) and check the market again mid 2010.
Giving your example.
Lets say guy buys in 2009, and another guy buys in 2011 (Assuming home prices would have further gone down using existing data points).. Who do you think would come ahead in 2019.
more...
pictures FREE DOWNLAOD
sanju
12-19 09:56 PM
Its amazing to see how you are trying to force your views based on limited understanding on others. One good thing about religion? Now, I am not sure what religion means to you. To me, its the way I was brought up and the way people live. Having said that, the very upbringing instills the care for Health, Hygiene, Homes, Human Values, Harmony in Diversity etc. Long story short, help you become a humble and good social being.
Do you kow that "Science is still evolving. That is why we still discover and learn new things may be not every day, but periodically" Lets look at the core aspect, scientists once believed that Earth is flat, People as late at the time columbus discovered america believed that this is true. Slaves were even planning to kill the Columbus. Luckly for him, next morning they site the land which they thought as India but turned out to be America.
Scientists also believed that ATOM is the smallest particle. It changed due to development and research and broken down into P N & Electrons. Now it evolved into Quartz. It may change in future due to advancements.
How do you say that science is perfect and that is the truth? Well truth never changes, you and I wrote in science exams about the smallest particles and got marks but, now that answers are no longer valid.
Religion is the way we live, that is why there are more religions now. People live and believe in certain way becomes new religion or cult. Way we live influences the way we think and what we learn and believe. But, you know what, Fundamental aspect is Faith... superior to belief. It takes faith to accept somethings that are unknown. This is the core aspect that leads to scientific research and development. Which results in Technological advancement and life science evolve.
The way we live help us develop that aspect..faith in unknown things which in turn leads to research and facilitate all that related to science mentioned above. You know what I am talking about. Do not trash religion.. again I do not know what it means to you. it could mean different things to different people... Being religious is not bad at all. As you said, Just like science, People may choose to live wrong way :)
Science keeps evolving as we learn new things. Something that evolves, learn and change is alive. Religion never changes and its "guardians" do not want it to change. Something that never evolve, change even after learning new things is dead. That's the fundamental difference between religion and science even when the two compete with each other in the same sphere to answer different questions of mankind. You seems to suggest that it is bad and wrong for science to continue to get better and evolve?
Do you want to continue to follow a dead path or you think there is a possibility that there is more to this world than what is offered in the organized religion. I am not an atheist because I do believe in the Creator, our source. But I do not believe that any organized religion is the ONLY way to get there, as ALL religions preach. Rather, organized religions keep us away from getting there. All through out history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other aspect in nature. How is it possible that the path to our creator be so violent and deadly? The form of all recognized & organized religions practiced by over 99% of mankind is not the direction in which the "GODs" of these religions would want its followers to go. These religions were created by con artists and thugs long after the saints were gone.
I find it funny that you blame science for evolving and making new discoveries i.e. blaming every next generation to learn more than it predecessors. Why? Because the smallest known particle to man is no longer an atom???? And why do people need to lean their faith on a religion. If that faith is true in its entirety, what is the role of a religion? The fact that faith needs a religion on lean on, means that faith is not strong enough, and hence the case for elimination of religion from our way of life.
But you said one thing right. Religion is the way we live. So religion is not the spiritual structure we want to live by but the corrupt immoral wrong way we continue to live, because our parents and our parent's parents lived like that, so it has got to be the right way, right?
Faith could mean different things to different people because relationship with god is personal. But religion is laid out in the form in the "books". There is no difference in the way it says that "Jesus is the only son of God" or "Kafirs must be converted or killed" or "people of lower caste are there to serve Brahmans". There is no ambiguity to this. Now, if the faith is weak and it needs support to lean on a religion, then for some, faith and religion become synonyms. But faith and religion are in two different spheres and they are world apart, no matter how hard the religious right wants to try to obfuscate the meaning of "faith" and "religion".
.
Do you kow that "Science is still evolving. That is why we still discover and learn new things may be not every day, but periodically" Lets look at the core aspect, scientists once believed that Earth is flat, People as late at the time columbus discovered america believed that this is true. Slaves were even planning to kill the Columbus. Luckly for him, next morning they site the land which they thought as India but turned out to be America.
Scientists also believed that ATOM is the smallest particle. It changed due to development and research and broken down into P N & Electrons. Now it evolved into Quartz. It may change in future due to advancements.
How do you say that science is perfect and that is the truth? Well truth never changes, you and I wrote in science exams about the smallest particles and got marks but, now that answers are no longer valid.
Religion is the way we live, that is why there are more religions now. People live and believe in certain way becomes new religion or cult. Way we live influences the way we think and what we learn and believe. But, you know what, Fundamental aspect is Faith... superior to belief. It takes faith to accept somethings that are unknown. This is the core aspect that leads to scientific research and development. Which results in Technological advancement and life science evolve.
The way we live help us develop that aspect..faith in unknown things which in turn leads to research and facilitate all that related to science mentioned above. You know what I am talking about. Do not trash religion.. again I do not know what it means to you. it could mean different things to different people... Being religious is not bad at all. As you said, Just like science, People may choose to live wrong way :)
Science keeps evolving as we learn new things. Something that evolves, learn and change is alive. Religion never changes and its "guardians" do not want it to change. Something that never evolve, change even after learning new things is dead. That's the fundamental difference between religion and science even when the two compete with each other in the same sphere to answer different questions of mankind. You seems to suggest that it is bad and wrong for science to continue to get better and evolve?
Do you want to continue to follow a dead path or you think there is a possibility that there is more to this world than what is offered in the organized religion. I am not an atheist because I do believe in the Creator, our source. But I do not believe that any organized religion is the ONLY way to get there, as ALL religions preach. Rather, organized religions keep us away from getting there. All through out history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other aspect in nature. How is it possible that the path to our creator be so violent and deadly? The form of all recognized & organized religions practiced by over 99% of mankind is not the direction in which the "GODs" of these religions would want its followers to go. These religions were created by con artists and thugs long after the saints were gone.
I find it funny that you blame science for evolving and making new discoveries i.e. blaming every next generation to learn more than it predecessors. Why? Because the smallest known particle to man is no longer an atom???? And why do people need to lean their faith on a religion. If that faith is true in its entirety, what is the role of a religion? The fact that faith needs a religion on lean on, means that faith is not strong enough, and hence the case for elimination of religion from our way of life.
But you said one thing right. Religion is the way we live. So religion is not the spiritual structure we want to live by but the corrupt immoral wrong way we continue to live, because our parents and our parent's parents lived like that, so it has got to be the right way, right?
Faith could mean different things to different people because relationship with god is personal. But religion is laid out in the form in the "books". There is no difference in the way it says that "Jesus is the only son of God" or "Kafirs must be converted or killed" or "people of lower caste are there to serve Brahmans". There is no ambiguity to this. Now, if the faith is weak and it needs support to lean on a religion, then for some, faith and religion become synonyms. But faith and religion are in two different spheres and they are world apart, no matter how hard the religious right wants to try to obfuscate the meaning of "faith" and "religion".
.
dresses Free Mobile Phone Wallpapers,
Rolling_Flood
07-14 02:28 AM
Dude, you are one confused person.........whats the point here??
EB-3 India is somehow "special" and all you whiners in EB-3 India should get your GCs before EB-2 folks becuase blah blah blah........WHAT???
are you insane?? you make no sense in your argument.
Numbers fall as EB1--> EB2 --> EB3.
Dont like it, go get an education and/or an EB-2 level job. Else shut up. You have nothing to say.
Hi kutra,
Good post I can understand what you want to do here, you are diffusing the tensions between EB2 and EB3. I hope many more people write posts like you and I appreciate it. But factually what you said is not correct "The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3".
What I am posting here I sent the same in private messages to some other members and it helped to diffuse this bad arguments between EB3 and EB2 folks.. I am posting here because I thought with this I can give the right(my?) perspective on this and bring some �sanity� to these arguments.
Here is my take on this EB1, EB2 and EB3.
Out of the total 140K each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%. So if each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%, then what and where is the priority? EB1, EB2 and EB3 are just groups, it just means that US need these categories of jobs to be filled by immigrant workers.
By definition always number applications filed in EB3>EB2>EB1 there is no argument there. And the waiting time also will be EB3>EB2>EB1. That is fair, there is no competition here across groups, each have a quota and its own queue, every one competes with in the group.
If first, all(9K Ind)(140K Total) Visas are given to E1 and any leftover are given to EB2 and then any leftover from EB2 are given to EB3 then you can say the priority is EB1>EB2>EB3. The spillover that to from a particular preference has priority I understand. But at the least every group will get its 33.33% if those many category applications are present in that group.
Yes, unused ROW EB1 go EB2 and then to EB3. Yes unused ROW EB2 and ROW EB3 and to EB3. That makes sense and it dos not contradict what I am saying. Now EB2 is special case that there are lots of EB2 India applications are pending so they get only the spillover from EB1.
I agree with you on your statement below, and I feel the same way. Looks like if either Eb2 or EB3 is mentioned in a thread it turning into a bad arguments between EB2 and EB3 hope this ends soon.
As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.
EB-3 India is somehow "special" and all you whiners in EB-3 India should get your GCs before EB-2 folks becuase blah blah blah........WHAT???
are you insane?? you make no sense in your argument.
Numbers fall as EB1--> EB2 --> EB3.
Dont like it, go get an education and/or an EB-2 level job. Else shut up. You have nothing to say.
Hi kutra,
Good post I can understand what you want to do here, you are diffusing the tensions between EB2 and EB3. I hope many more people write posts like you and I appreciate it. But factually what you said is not correct "The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3".
What I am posting here I sent the same in private messages to some other members and it helped to diffuse this bad arguments between EB3 and EB2 folks.. I am posting here because I thought with this I can give the right(my?) perspective on this and bring some �sanity� to these arguments.
Here is my take on this EB1, EB2 and EB3.
Out of the total 140K each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%. So if each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%, then what and where is the priority? EB1, EB2 and EB3 are just groups, it just means that US need these categories of jobs to be filled by immigrant workers.
By definition always number applications filed in EB3>EB2>EB1 there is no argument there. And the waiting time also will be EB3>EB2>EB1. That is fair, there is no competition here across groups, each have a quota and its own queue, every one competes with in the group.
If first, all(9K Ind)(140K Total) Visas are given to E1 and any leftover are given to EB2 and then any leftover from EB2 are given to EB3 then you can say the priority is EB1>EB2>EB3. The spillover that to from a particular preference has priority I understand. But at the least every group will get its 33.33% if those many category applications are present in that group.
Yes, unused ROW EB1 go EB2 and then to EB3. Yes unused ROW EB2 and ROW EB3 and to EB3. That makes sense and it dos not contradict what I am saying. Now EB2 is special case that there are lots of EB2 India applications are pending so they get only the spillover from EB1.
I agree with you on your statement below, and I feel the same way. Looks like if either Eb2 or EB3 is mentioned in a thread it turning into a bad arguments between EB2 and EB3 hope this ends soon.
As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.
more...
makeup funny animated wallpapers for
panky72
08-06 03:17 PM
A stranger was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when the stranger turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.'
The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, 'What would you like to talk about?'
'Oh, I don't know,' said the stranger. 'How about nuclear power?' and he smiles.
'OK, ' she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass - . Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?'
The stranger, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, 'Hmmm, I have no idea.'
To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know S-H-I-T?:D
The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, 'What would you like to talk about?'
'Oh, I don't know,' said the stranger. 'How about nuclear power?' and he smiles.
'OK, ' she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass - . Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?'
The stranger, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, 'Hmmm, I have no idea.'
To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know S-H-I-T?:D
girlfriend Download free Cell Phone
chanduv23
03-24 02:14 PM
I had little knowledge of immigration and of the type of people on h-1b and the type of companies who sponsor greencards when I first started perusing immigration boards. I thought many people were like me.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
UN - why do you think USCIS allows
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
UN - why do you think USCIS allows
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
hairstyles Animated Christmas Wallpaper:
insbaby
03-25 06:56 AM
Awesome piece of advice..I've got to meet ya!!
Because you Can't Leave America.
Because you Can't Leave America.
aadimanav
07-13 09:35 PM
Version 2 of the "Petition to Recapture Lost Visas" is added here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262392#post262392
Please share your views.
Thanks,
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262392#post262392
Please share your views.
Thanks,
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:39 AM
What do you mean "i am eligible for EB2"?????
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
No comments:
Post a Comment