ivar
08-16 02:05 AM
He is confused immigration with security system
I agree security system and immigration system are two different things but they are closely related. What procedures we follow after landing with our I-94 form are immigration procedures and not security checks. Well i guess i need not extend this topic any further.. because as one post above says that this thread is not leading to any fruitful discussion. I assume forums are a place to discuss and exchange views and ideas and what better place than IV to discuss immigration issues.. i don't understand. Still if this thread doesn't serve any purpose i will edit and remove all my post on this thread. Thanks everyone for sharing your views.
I agree security system and immigration system are two different things but they are closely related. What procedures we follow after landing with our I-94 form are immigration procedures and not security checks. Well i guess i need not extend this topic any further.. because as one post above says that this thread is not leading to any fruitful discussion. I assume forums are a place to discuss and exchange views and ideas and what better place than IV to discuss immigration issues.. i don't understand. Still if this thread doesn't serve any purpose i will edit and remove all my post on this thread. Thanks everyone for sharing your views.
wallpaper Selena Gomez Who Says Music
logiclife
06-26 12:21 PM
Yes, the august bulletin will be showing retrogressed dates. But when August bulletin is issued in mid-July, it does not impact the petitions received in July, because the August bulletin applies to August and even if August is retrogressed until 1975, they still have to accept 485s until 31st July.
That's what your lawyer said. Right?
That's what your lawyer said. Right?
chintu25
02-13 10:55 AM
The issue is that people speak big here - but run away when asked to come forward. How do we trust 35K members who have tons of excuses for not doing anything for themsleves and blaming IV and questioning IVs credibility?
Ok Chandu Lets not do anything then and just sit tight...... and hope for something to happen
I respect your opinion but now think you r getting disappointed by people not responding to IV campaigns..
One thing that is v clear from the Feb 4th memo about fingerprint/name check
It happend because there was al awsuit filed. I urge the IV core to atleast explore this option with a good attorney again.
One motto
TRY AND TRY TILL YOU SUCCEED
Ok Chandu Lets not do anything then and just sit tight...... and hope for something to happen
I respect your opinion but now think you r getting disappointed by people not responding to IV campaigns..
One thing that is v clear from the Feb 4th memo about fingerprint/name check
It happend because there was al awsuit filed. I urge the IV core to atleast explore this option with a good attorney again.
One motto
TRY AND TRY TILL YOU SUCCEED
2011 selena gomez who says video
BharatPremi
12-14 04:01 PM
To summarize the discussions on this thread:
Yes, it is 7 % for all countries.
Now it is manifestly obvious that the 7 % figure is arbitrary, and not fair. That much we can all agree on.
The real question, as raised in the first post of the thread by soljabhai is:
(A) Is that constitutional?
(B) (And this is the real question): If it is, what should we do about it?
Intelligent questions, both.
The answer to (A) is not clear. We need a competent constitutional expert to opine on the matter.
For (B), (which is what the thread is really all about), there are lively discussions with differing views.
lazycis has presented good evidence that the case is not cut and dried legally. It might be unfair, but those are the laws.
mbartosik, alterego, me and others have argued (from different angles) in terms of pragmatism. (Cost is not worth the benefit)
garybanz, soljabhai, and others have argued that it is worth it (Cost is worth the benefit).
Anyway, agree or disagree, its an interesting thread with interesting posts..
Addition to this:
--------------
- "7% limit" is not discriminative to "Any country" AND "Restrictive" especially
to the countries from where maximum flow of labor comes.
- When industry demands high number of labor and in the situation of getting majority of this labor from particular
countries only ,since the available labor force in other countries does not match the demand for one or other reason,
then this restriction becomes SENSELESS and useless in all its practical terms and limits.
- "Country of origin based limit" "smells" (In Mark's language..:))
discriminative when employment always have to be related with "skill" AND
THAT IS A ETHICAL OR MORAL PROBLEM
Yes, it is 7 % for all countries.
Now it is manifestly obvious that the 7 % figure is arbitrary, and not fair. That much we can all agree on.
The real question, as raised in the first post of the thread by soljabhai is:
(A) Is that constitutional?
(B) (And this is the real question): If it is, what should we do about it?
Intelligent questions, both.
The answer to (A) is not clear. We need a competent constitutional expert to opine on the matter.
For (B), (which is what the thread is really all about), there are lively discussions with differing views.
lazycis has presented good evidence that the case is not cut and dried legally. It might be unfair, but those are the laws.
mbartosik, alterego, me and others have argued (from different angles) in terms of pragmatism. (Cost is not worth the benefit)
garybanz, soljabhai, and others have argued that it is worth it (Cost is worth the benefit).
Anyway, agree or disagree, its an interesting thread with interesting posts..
Addition to this:
--------------
- "7% limit" is not discriminative to "Any country" AND "Restrictive" especially
to the countries from where maximum flow of labor comes.
- When industry demands high number of labor and in the situation of getting majority of this labor from particular
countries only ,since the available labor force in other countries does not match the demand for one or other reason,
then this restriction becomes SENSELESS and useless in all its practical terms and limits.
- "Country of origin based limit" "smells" (In Mark's language..:))
discriminative when employment always have to be related with "skill" AND
THAT IS A ETHICAL OR MORAL PROBLEM
more...
ocpmachine
06-11 07:39 PM
To be honest, I do agree that the US needs qualified people with skillsets. The real question is "Are the people from the desi consulting companies the real qualified lot ? " Just to get my background details out of the way. I am a new member, from India ofcourse, and I have recently applied for my citizenship. Now with this huge deluge of immigrants, especially from the desi consulting companies, I feel that my quality of life is getting adversely impacted. Do not rush to conclusions that I am anti Indian or anti immigrant. 12 years back when I first got my H1 visa, the requirements to qualify were strict. Staffing companies to a decent extent followed rules and tried to get the best and the brightest. Once the dot com boom started, people from all walks of life entered IT. This was true of not just the Indians but also of people in the US. Soon after the bust, the value proposition from these staffing companies was simply low cost. This is not to blame the staffing companies. They behaved in an economically rational way.
Consider this scenario. If you run a consulting company, wouldn't you try to maximize your profits by staffing people in projects at the least cost ? This is econmically rational. You wouldn't worry much about the quality of the deliverables and all you would care is to dump as many bodies as possible at the client site or offshore and get the maximum bang for the buck.
In this scenario, how is it feasible to expect immigrational justice when the bodies themselves dont provide exceptional talent and skills but simply offer low cost ? Now you would be tempted to bring in the analogous case of illegal low skilled immigrants. Remember they are just that - low skilled workers. They dont "steal" the jobs of high skilled workers. But this dumping of IT workforce has completely brought down the standard of living of the IT workers here. To be honest, those who get green cards today would feel the same way five years from now when the next wave of so called "skilled IT immigrants" offer even lower wages and destroy the quality of life.
In summary, this retrogression is good in a way. The truly best and the brightest would still be employed until their turn for adjournment comes in. Only the weak are currently scared of the delays. I went through the same torrid GC phase after the tech meltdown in 2001. I was not worried of my job then but many people whom I knew got clobbered and were forced to leave. This is the darwinian flush and it will take its toll. Trust me this the bitter truth. If you people still consider that all the people on H1/L1 are part of the best and the brightest, they are WRONG. Only a small % (probably 20%) are the true best and the brightest and a good 50% will be flushed out. Sorry to say this and hey give me the red dots.
Dilip Dude,
As said before by unseenguy, your case is just plain LUCK, if there was no bill during 1999-2000 to recapture and increase GC quota, you would have been still struck in BEC counting days for GC,forget Citizenship. Just because you are over qualified(or under!) than others does not make you special or get you GC faster, you just had some good KARMA, thats it...
Anyways, your attitude of blaming others(h1/l1 etc.) for decrease in your quality of life is just plain STUPID and shows your maturity.
I wish you are not in a managerial position, I have seen many Desi managers like you who give hard time to fellow Desi folks working under them thinking they rule the world and they are the only qualified one who knows all.
My advice is wish good for others not bad, this will get you more good karma and maybe get your citizenship faster.. :-)
Consider this scenario. If you run a consulting company, wouldn't you try to maximize your profits by staffing people in projects at the least cost ? This is econmically rational. You wouldn't worry much about the quality of the deliverables and all you would care is to dump as many bodies as possible at the client site or offshore and get the maximum bang for the buck.
In this scenario, how is it feasible to expect immigrational justice when the bodies themselves dont provide exceptional talent and skills but simply offer low cost ? Now you would be tempted to bring in the analogous case of illegal low skilled immigrants. Remember they are just that - low skilled workers. They dont "steal" the jobs of high skilled workers. But this dumping of IT workforce has completely brought down the standard of living of the IT workers here. To be honest, those who get green cards today would feel the same way five years from now when the next wave of so called "skilled IT immigrants" offer even lower wages and destroy the quality of life.
In summary, this retrogression is good in a way. The truly best and the brightest would still be employed until their turn for adjournment comes in. Only the weak are currently scared of the delays. I went through the same torrid GC phase after the tech meltdown in 2001. I was not worried of my job then but many people whom I knew got clobbered and were forced to leave. This is the darwinian flush and it will take its toll. Trust me this the bitter truth. If you people still consider that all the people on H1/L1 are part of the best and the brightest, they are WRONG. Only a small % (probably 20%) are the true best and the brightest and a good 50% will be flushed out. Sorry to say this and hey give me the red dots.
Dilip Dude,
As said before by unseenguy, your case is just plain LUCK, if there was no bill during 1999-2000 to recapture and increase GC quota, you would have been still struck in BEC counting days for GC,forget Citizenship. Just because you are over qualified(or under!) than others does not make you special or get you GC faster, you just had some good KARMA, thats it...
Anyways, your attitude of blaming others(h1/l1 etc.) for decrease in your quality of life is just plain STUPID and shows your maturity.
I wish you are not in a managerial position, I have seen many Desi managers like you who give hard time to fellow Desi folks working under them thinking they rule the world and they are the only qualified one who knows all.
My advice is wish good for others not bad, this will get you more good karma and maybe get your citizenship faster.. :-)
vivekm1309
02-12 09:12 PM
That is an apples to dinosaur analogy.
The per-country ceiling was originally created in order to establish and maintain proportionality in various immigrants coming from different countries in FAMILY BASED IMMIGRATION.
Family based immigration is driven by family relationship. Its not driven by talent or economic contribution. Therefore its important to make sure that no country completely dominates the family based immigration system by getting a head start. If one country is ahead initially in sending immigrants (like the Irish in the 1920s and Italians in 1930s), then that country's immigrants would sponsor their family and that new family would in turn sponsor their relatives and so on. Whichever country has an advantage in the begining would keep building on that advantage and eat up the entire family based quota. That's why when they wrote the INA in 1965 by codifying a bunch of loose federal regulations that governed immigration, they inserted the per-country ceiling. And that makes sense even today in Family based immigration.
Every country in the world has unlimited potential to send family members and relatives to America. But every country in the world does not have unlimited potential to send Ph.Ds and skilled labor. That ability is disproportionately huge with India, China, Mexico and Phillipines.
The per-country ceilings got INHERITED into employment based system because our legislators were too lazy to spot the difference in two systems. One system gives you a green card because you are related to someone. Other system gives you a green card because you have skills that are wanted by an employer here.
Benefits driven by family relationship should be rationed and given out propotionally because an Irish family, Italian family and a Chinese family all love their families equally and the value of family re-unification is the same. You cant say that the Irish love their sibilings more than the Chinese or Indians do. HENCE THE COUNTRY LIMITS IN FAMILY BASED SYSTEM.
But in employment based system, what the system is doing is that an Irish guy, (or any ROW guy) with Bachelor's degree in EB3 is getting green card sooner than an Indian guy or Chinese guy with masters degree in EB2. THAT IS DISCRIMINATION. Yes, that is discrimination not matter how you slice it and dice it with your olympic analogies.
Agreed this is discrimination, what stops us from fighting this discrimination using legal class action lawsuit? Is it the money required or did a lawsuit fail earlier that inhibits us to file class action lawsuit?
The per-country ceiling was originally created in order to establish and maintain proportionality in various immigrants coming from different countries in FAMILY BASED IMMIGRATION.
Family based immigration is driven by family relationship. Its not driven by talent or economic contribution. Therefore its important to make sure that no country completely dominates the family based immigration system by getting a head start. If one country is ahead initially in sending immigrants (like the Irish in the 1920s and Italians in 1930s), then that country's immigrants would sponsor their family and that new family would in turn sponsor their relatives and so on. Whichever country has an advantage in the begining would keep building on that advantage and eat up the entire family based quota. That's why when they wrote the INA in 1965 by codifying a bunch of loose federal regulations that governed immigration, they inserted the per-country ceiling. And that makes sense even today in Family based immigration.
Every country in the world has unlimited potential to send family members and relatives to America. But every country in the world does not have unlimited potential to send Ph.Ds and skilled labor. That ability is disproportionately huge with India, China, Mexico and Phillipines.
The per-country ceilings got INHERITED into employment based system because our legislators were too lazy to spot the difference in two systems. One system gives you a green card because you are related to someone. Other system gives you a green card because you have skills that are wanted by an employer here.
Benefits driven by family relationship should be rationed and given out propotionally because an Irish family, Italian family and a Chinese family all love their families equally and the value of family re-unification is the same. You cant say that the Irish love their sibilings more than the Chinese or Indians do. HENCE THE COUNTRY LIMITS IN FAMILY BASED SYSTEM.
But in employment based system, what the system is doing is that an Irish guy, (or any ROW guy) with Bachelor's degree in EB3 is getting green card sooner than an Indian guy or Chinese guy with masters degree in EB2. THAT IS DISCRIMINATION. Yes, that is discrimination not matter how you slice it and dice it with your olympic analogies.
Agreed this is discrimination, what stops us from fighting this discrimination using legal class action lawsuit? Is it the money required or did a lawsuit fail earlier that inhibits us to file class action lawsuit?
more...
msp1976
02-13 03:05 PM
You guys still think it is horizontal. This has been discussed so many times with reference to the law; the note in november 2005 visa bulletin; another lawyer who received statistics in chinees overall approvals for 2006 which were going to be close to 7% and you guys still believe this is a gray area.
USCIS today is using the vertical flow...I acknowledge that....
It might be a defendable position in courts ..... My arguement is that the original text of of the law is ambigous enough to mount a challenge...It might not succeed but it is possible to take a shot at it....It is a long shot.....
USCIS today is using the vertical flow...I acknowledge that....
It might be a defendable position in courts ..... My arguement is that the original text of of the law is ambigous enough to mount a challenge...It might not succeed but it is possible to take a shot at it....It is a long shot.....
2010 selena gomez who says video
boreal
05-29 01:42 PM
Ok, the guy that sets the dates says that he sees no possibility of dates moving forward for EB India and ppl are still thinking there is hope? I am an optimist and try to see the brighter side - and that side here is that we know there is no hope for those past 2005 in the next two years. That to me is sufficient to make decisions and move on. Be it changing to a different job or going back to the home country - most probably the former for me.
more...
akred
02-18 12:31 PM
Reason it was retrogressed is probably everyone was getting everyone of their relatives, etc., to come to USA through employment base. The country quota in my mind is designed to prevent such abuses of people making an end run and designing systems to get people from certain countries here.
You are theorizing based on circumstantial evidence, but the history and origin of the country quota does not support your conclusion. The fact that the DOL and UCCIS would not be able to keep abreast of illegal behavior is not something that would have been known at the time the country quota was introduced.
The other issue with your theory is that the abuse you are referring has its roots in the fact that the employer controls the green card process not the country quota. If I really want to abuse the country quota I would change my name and get a fake SSN / green card and wait for the periodic legalization initiatives or even simpler, get a birth certificate from the right country.
You are theorizing based on circumstantial evidence, but the history and origin of the country quota does not support your conclusion. The fact that the DOL and UCCIS would not be able to keep abreast of illegal behavior is not something that would have been known at the time the country quota was introduced.
The other issue with your theory is that the abuse you are referring has its roots in the fact that the employer controls the green card process not the country quota. If I really want to abuse the country quota I would change my name and get a fake SSN / green card and wait for the periodic legalization initiatives or even simpler, get a birth certificate from the right country.
hair selena gomez who says video
vdlrao
07-29 12:15 AM
However, these students are not completely exempted from the H1B quota for each year. Whatever, if PERM filing in year 2008 has witnessed 46% drop since 2007 ... it tells us a lot.
I presume the decrease in labour filing in 2008 might be a possibility due to the offshore Indian companies which shifting to H1B sponsorship instead of L1 sponsorship. Because most of the L1s being rejected with these companies recently. So they switching to H1 sponsorship. And obviously they normally dont sponsor GC. So this is just my thinking on why the labor filings decreased in 2008 compared to 2007.
http://www.myvisajobs.com/reports/Sponsor/Top500_h1b_visa_sponsor_2005.pdf
I presume the decrease in labour filing in 2008 might be a possibility due to the offshore Indian companies which shifting to H1B sponsorship instead of L1 sponsorship. Because most of the L1s being rejected with these companies recently. So they switching to H1 sponsorship. And obviously they normally dont sponsor GC. So this is just my thinking on why the labor filings decreased in 2008 compared to 2007.
http://www.myvisajobs.com/reports/Sponsor/Top500_h1b_visa_sponsor_2005.pdf
more...
akred
02-15 07:26 PM
My point is that the immigration laws of the United States were racist until the 1952 INA act. They specifically placed quotas on people based on the color of their skin. Today's restrictions, while bizarre, unreasonable and unfair in many ways, cannot be defined as racist.
Sure it is. Check the UN definition.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Sure it is. Check the UN definition.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
hot tattoo pictures selena gomez
satishku_2000
01-23 04:58 PM
I appreciate that, I dont want IV to be dragged into any unnecessary controversy ..
more...
house shoes in selena gomez who says
kuhelica2000
02-13 01:15 PM
Finally you hit the nail on its head. That�s why the per country limit is there so no one country with larger population can monopolize any agenda the way you are trying to do with IV.
On the contrary, fight for keeping the country limits will kill the movement as Indians who form more than 80% of IV will feel disillusioned and leave. Once that happens ROW can as well kiss the GC increase good bye.
Like grupak mentioned real workable solution is 1) Increase overall numbers (will benefit ROW as well as oversubscribed countries) 2) Eliminate the meaningless country quota. If there is an increase in overall numbers removal of country quotas will have very low impact on ROW. This is the fact.
But there are still some fanatics who pick up fights to keep the country quotas intact. If all of them quit IV damage will still be minimum, when compared to Indians (80% of IV) leaving. Movement will survive and thrive. How many ROW were there at DC rally? Of those present, half were on the stage. Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much.
My challenge to ROW members who keep on harping about the split in the movement - PARTICIPATE!! Just being active on the forum and posting a hundred posts doesn't make you part of the movement. I hardly see many ROW members volunteering or accepting leadership roles. Unlike EB immigration, IV is open to everyone no matter where you were born. We don't have any 7% quota per country ! And yet, why are the active volunteers, leadership, contributors - the REAL movement- is disproportinately Indian.
Want to influence the movement, be a significant part of it. That's real democracy.
On the contrary, fight for keeping the country limits will kill the movement as Indians who form more than 80% of IV will feel disillusioned and leave. Once that happens ROW can as well kiss the GC increase good bye.
Like grupak mentioned real workable solution is 1) Increase overall numbers (will benefit ROW as well as oversubscribed countries) 2) Eliminate the meaningless country quota. If there is an increase in overall numbers removal of country quotas will have very low impact on ROW. This is the fact.
But there are still some fanatics who pick up fights to keep the country quotas intact. If all of them quit IV damage will still be minimum, when compared to Indians (80% of IV) leaving. Movement will survive and thrive. How many ROW were there at DC rally? Of those present, half were on the stage. Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much.
My challenge to ROW members who keep on harping about the split in the movement - PARTICIPATE!! Just being active on the forum and posting a hundred posts doesn't make you part of the movement. I hardly see many ROW members volunteering or accepting leadership roles. Unlike EB immigration, IV is open to everyone no matter where you were born. We don't have any 7% quota per country ! And yet, why are the active volunteers, leadership, contributors - the REAL movement- is disproportinately Indian.
Want to influence the movement, be a significant part of it. That's real democracy.
tattoo gomez+who+says+video+pics
BharatPremi
05-11 09:57 PM
buddy,
I'm already in my beloved place and with your contribution and help to Immigration Voice, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks for the help.
Remember, you are doing this to potentially ditch India and to change your nationality and are going to take oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law..............."
My question is, hypothetically if in future if there is a war between USA and India, and hypothetically you become a US citizen, how do you conform to the oath?
Looks like my posting hit the nerve hard, i see it from your response.
I'm cultured enough not to bring your mother and father into the conversation.
Good Luck
Nandakumar,
It is pretty much proven that in your mental territory you have already ditched India and it is the USA which will take long to grant you a GC and then afterwards citizenship for which you almost represented your beggar like mentality. But that is not my concern and should not be. I have only one question to you and I hope youwould try to answer it with all possible honesty.
Q: What will be your view regarding USA's official policy to consider LTTE a terrorist organisation? ONce you will be come US citizen how will you align yourself with this policy?
I'm already in my beloved place and with your contribution and help to Immigration Voice, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks for the help.
Remember, you are doing this to potentially ditch India and to change your nationality and are going to take oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law..............."
My question is, hypothetically if in future if there is a war between USA and India, and hypothetically you become a US citizen, how do you conform to the oath?
Looks like my posting hit the nerve hard, i see it from your response.
I'm cultured enough not to bring your mother and father into the conversation.
Good Luck
Nandakumar,
It is pretty much proven that in your mental territory you have already ditched India and it is the USA which will take long to grant you a GC and then afterwards citizenship for which you almost represented your beggar like mentality. But that is not my concern and should not be. I have only one question to you and I hope youwould try to answer it with all possible honesty.
Q: What will be your view regarding USA's official policy to consider LTTE a terrorist organisation? ONce you will be come US citizen how will you align yourself with this policy?
more...
pictures selena gomez who says video
ss1026
03-29 01:38 PM
To those ignorants or idiots who voted for Rahul Gandhi or Sonia Gandhi:
This is a book shows facts about Nehru Dynasty in India: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1777536/Nehru-Gandhi-Family-Secrets
US just elected a President who father and step father are Muslims. And that is great and the world appreciates that because it shows that this country can judge a person by his skills or character and not get stuck in bigoted views about muslims or other minorities. And we love this country for that
But when it comes to India, don't you think of voting for Rahul gandhi because he might have some blood of either a parsi or ('god forbid') muslim in him. That certainly should dis qualify him, shouldn't it. Nepotism is certainly bad but this takes the cake. Dont vote for him because he might be 10% parsi/muslim (I am sure you have not forgotten about the italian heritage but you can raise that later). But certainly criminals and perpetrators of Genocide would be desirable PM choices. Rock on
This is a book shows facts about Nehru Dynasty in India: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1777536/Nehru-Gandhi-Family-Secrets
US just elected a President who father and step father are Muslims. And that is great and the world appreciates that because it shows that this country can judge a person by his skills or character and not get stuck in bigoted views about muslims or other minorities. And we love this country for that
But when it comes to India, don't you think of voting for Rahul gandhi because he might have some blood of either a parsi or ('god forbid') muslim in him. That certainly should dis qualify him, shouldn't it. Nepotism is certainly bad but this takes the cake. Dont vote for him because he might be 10% parsi/muslim (I am sure you have not forgotten about the italian heritage but you can raise that later). But certainly criminals and perpetrators of Genocide would be desirable PM choices. Rock on
dresses pictures Selena Gomez New
ItIsNotFunny
03-26 01:19 PM
......because you are using labor substitution.
At this time nobody can do anything legally against people who are using labor substitution and employers who are secretly selling labor substitution.
This substitution is increasing backlogs, is unfair to people waiting in line, encourages employer exploitation since they use it as an incentive to woo employees and then exploit them, 'selling' is illegal but one must complain against the employer and the employee for DOL to act.
Lawyers are part of this scam. I have read in some posts that even AILA opposed when labor substitution was being ended. It is a lost business opportunity for their lawyer members!!
I have pointed several labor substitution members on the forums in the past. some of them were never found on the forum since they feared being caught. They must have changed their ID or ran away. So until a law is passed for banning it, such 'trade' that hurts our interests will continue.
Good that you guys are only buying labor certifications. There is no 'legal' process to buy greencards directly from employers yet!!
I am not using, but I still agree that given opportunity you should use it.
At this time nobody can do anything legally against people who are using labor substitution and employers who are secretly selling labor substitution.
This substitution is increasing backlogs, is unfair to people waiting in line, encourages employer exploitation since they use it as an incentive to woo employees and then exploit them, 'selling' is illegal but one must complain against the employer and the employee for DOL to act.
Lawyers are part of this scam. I have read in some posts that even AILA opposed when labor substitution was being ended. It is a lost business opportunity for their lawyer members!!
I have pointed several labor substitution members on the forums in the past. some of them were never found on the forum since they feared being caught. They must have changed their ID or ran away. So until a law is passed for banning it, such 'trade' that hurts our interests will continue.
Good that you guys are only buying labor certifications. There is no 'legal' process to buy greencards directly from employers yet!!
I am not using, but I still agree that given opportunity you should use it.
more...
makeup pictures selena gomez songs
gc_on_demand
01-13 07:26 PM
USCIS - Questions & Answers: USCIS Issues Guidance Memorandum on Establishing the "Employee-Employer Relationship" in H-1B Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3d015869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
girlfriend selena gomez twitter pictures.
kanakabyraju
08-17 12:32 PM
Who cares about farmers. As per British, Indians are dogs and deep inside we are still dogs. We just bark at nothing. Otherwise this thread would have not started.
thanks
Kanaka
Let's look at the following news items
"If Pepsi is banned in India, I would go to the US and drink it� - SRK in 2006. This shows that SRK is nothing but a money minded freak who'll do anything for big bucks.
"SRK was cleared in 66 minutes, say US officials". This shows the true picture of the incident and whatever happened was routine and nothing was intended to single out SRK.
"I was questioned for two hours"- SRK. This shows the dishonesty and exaggeration of the incident, which the actor feels has hurt his ego. It's like "Mommy! US has pinched me OOOOO"
"I don't feel like stepping on American soil any more, but it is the love and affection of millions of his fans in the US which would bring him to this country again and again." - SRK. It's like "I don't feel like eating Ice-cream anymore. But since you all fans want me to eat it, I'm gonna eat it again and again"
"Cabinet minister suggested a "tit-for-tat" policy toward Americans traveling to India". This shows that we don't have any brains of our own and a "tit-for-tat" policy is intended more as a revenge rather than a matter of national security.
"Angry fans in the northern city of Allahabad shouted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag." This shows the ignorance, illiteracy and hero worship that's rampant in India.
"India to take SRK detention issue strongly with US ". This shows that the govt. of India has got no better things to do, but feels that VIP treatment to movie stars is more important than nation's security. Moreover SRK visit to US was purely personal to promote his film and has got nothing to do with govt. of India.
"21 farmers end lives in 40 days in Andhra". Is anyone looking into this? Helooooo.
thanks
Kanaka
Let's look at the following news items
"If Pepsi is banned in India, I would go to the US and drink it� - SRK in 2006. This shows that SRK is nothing but a money minded freak who'll do anything for big bucks.
"SRK was cleared in 66 minutes, say US officials". This shows the true picture of the incident and whatever happened was routine and nothing was intended to single out SRK.
"I was questioned for two hours"- SRK. This shows the dishonesty and exaggeration of the incident, which the actor feels has hurt his ego. It's like "Mommy! US has pinched me OOOOO"
"I don't feel like stepping on American soil any more, but it is the love and affection of millions of his fans in the US which would bring him to this country again and again." - SRK. It's like "I don't feel like eating Ice-cream anymore. But since you all fans want me to eat it, I'm gonna eat it again and again"
"Cabinet minister suggested a "tit-for-tat" policy toward Americans traveling to India". This shows that we don't have any brains of our own and a "tit-for-tat" policy is intended more as a revenge rather than a matter of national security.
"Angry fans in the northern city of Allahabad shouted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag." This shows the ignorance, illiteracy and hero worship that's rampant in India.
"India to take SRK detention issue strongly with US ". This shows that the govt. of India has got no better things to do, but feels that VIP treatment to movie stars is more important than nation's security. Moreover SRK visit to US was purely personal to promote his film and has got nothing to do with govt. of India.
"21 farmers end lives in 40 days in Andhra". Is anyone looking into this? Helooooo.
hairstyles Selena Gomez#39;s tour dates have
AB1275
09-25 03:51 PM
I have applied on EB2. My PD is Oct 2006. My I-140/I-485 was filed concurrantly. How long do you think is my wait?
BMS
07-03 06:47 PM
sent to all foxnews email addr
sodh
03-19 12:42 PM
why do you think labor substitution would increase the backlog?
My company cancelled my labor process the day I resigned, tell me which big reputed company responded to a 45 day letter even when the candidate was not working with them, so that leaves us with companies like Cybersoft who filed multiple I-140 on one labor approval or there are people who are running parallel processes just to be safe and they are buying the sub. labor,so now even if the companies intention's are good,filling I-140 multiple times creates backlog in the service centers and then it is up to your fate if your file is picked up in the numerical order, in concurrent filling it was a race who got the the GC first the original beneficiary or the person who paid price for the same labor. Who are the people opposing substitution ban or the 45 day rule if you find them you will get your answers.
My company cancelled my labor process the day I resigned, tell me which big reputed company responded to a 45 day letter even when the candidate was not working with them, so that leaves us with companies like Cybersoft who filed multiple I-140 on one labor approval or there are people who are running parallel processes just to be safe and they are buying the sub. labor,so now even if the companies intention's are good,filling I-140 multiple times creates backlog in the service centers and then it is up to your fate if your file is picked up in the numerical order, in concurrent filling it was a race who got the the GC first the original beneficiary or the person who paid price for the same labor. Who are the people opposing substitution ban or the 45 day rule if you find them you will get your answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment