validIV
06-25 01:46 PM
I couldn't agree more. My first home is almost fully paid off. Peace of mind is a great thing.
I will be happy owning one home. And hope to repay it off quickly so i dont have any BANK to answer to. Having a peace of mind that one day when i pay off the home nobody can kick me off my home for any reason is PRICELESS to me.
It's not for my grandkids. Its for my wife and my kids when I retire.
Owning 10 homes so that you can donate to your grandkids may be PRICELESS to you. I wish you the best.
I will be happy owning one home. And hope to repay it off quickly so i dont have any BANK to answer to. Having a peace of mind that one day when i pay off the home nobody can kick me off my home for any reason is PRICELESS to me.
It's not for my grandkids. Its for my wife and my kids when I retire.
Owning 10 homes so that you can donate to your grandkids may be PRICELESS to you. I wish you the best.
wallpaper Germany France and Spain.
Macaca
12-14 11:33 AM
The Delta House Congress (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010993) The politics of futile gestures, Dec 14, 2007
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
pani_6
07-14 11:45 PM
Pappu,
Could you please outline what you would you say about helping EB-3 out when you meet with DOL/USCIS officials next time IV meets them...also I want you to write a full letter that address the issue faced by Eb-3 and post it for us to mail it out...I understand that letter is not perfect..but it brings the dire picture of EB-3-I..
From what I have seen in the Fourm posts nobody clearly knows how these Visa numbers are clearly allocated and everybody has thier own theory..and you know well legislation will not come this year and we do not know the composition of new congress next year..we may have a congress that even more anti-immigrant with the slowing economy.. and EB-3 I is badly hurting..
We cant convert to Eb-2 now its too late..LC PERM are getting Audited (Taking 8-9 months ) and no PP for I-140..even if we apply for Eb-2 now...by the time it comes ..we dont know whether Eb-3 would have moved to say 2003 making all the PERM and I-140($$) efforts go waste...
We want to know what is in store for EB-3...some folks write that only 5 families per state are going to get thier GC in EB-3.. at the current rate 2001 Eb-3 have to wait another 5 years to get thier numbers....
Could you in your next meeting with DOL/USCIS/DOS please bring up the issues with EB-3 now that EB-2 has some relief..and give us whether we need to convert to EB-2 or in the near future will the numbers in EB-3 move..
Frankly I have no enegery left ...
Pappu..you are doing a great job..I commend your efforts..please show some direction for EB-3 ..some news from DOS/USCIS would be helpful...
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
Could you please outline what you would you say about helping EB-3 out when you meet with DOL/USCIS officials next time IV meets them...also I want you to write a full letter that address the issue faced by Eb-3 and post it for us to mail it out...I understand that letter is not perfect..but it brings the dire picture of EB-3-I..
From what I have seen in the Fourm posts nobody clearly knows how these Visa numbers are clearly allocated and everybody has thier own theory..and you know well legislation will not come this year and we do not know the composition of new congress next year..we may have a congress that even more anti-immigrant with the slowing economy.. and EB-3 I is badly hurting..
We cant convert to Eb-2 now its too late..LC PERM are getting Audited (Taking 8-9 months ) and no PP for I-140..even if we apply for Eb-2 now...by the time it comes ..we dont know whether Eb-3 would have moved to say 2003 making all the PERM and I-140($$) efforts go waste...
We want to know what is in store for EB-3...some folks write that only 5 families per state are going to get thier GC in EB-3.. at the current rate 2001 Eb-3 have to wait another 5 years to get thier numbers....
Could you in your next meeting with DOL/USCIS/DOS please bring up the issues with EB-3 now that EB-2 has some relief..and give us whether we need to convert to EB-2 or in the near future will the numbers in EB-3 move..
Frankly I have no enegery left ...
Pappu..you are doing a great job..I commend your efforts..please show some direction for EB-3 ..some news from DOS/USCIS would be helpful...
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
2011 in France and Germany!
unitednations
03-25 06:59 PM
I am trying to upload a pdf file but keep getting error message.
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
more...
learning01
05-24 12:51 PM
still trolling Lou.
You can feel the vengence of Lou against immigrants in the tone, in the voice in the tenor and above all in the content and subject matter.
I can't sit quietly if someone on this forum speaks highly of Lou. But soon we must end this discussion, if Communique continues his rant. We need other things on the forum, like sending web fax #15, following senate live discussions. Such bill comes up only once in one's lifetime.
"Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?"
I think thoughtful and rational are NOT two words you would use to describe a Lou Dobbs broadcast. :D
Extremely one sided, hateful, demagogry, those words would be more accurate.
You can feel the vengence of Lou against immigrants in the tone, in the voice in the tenor and above all in the content and subject matter.
I can't sit quietly if someone on this forum speaks highly of Lou. But soon we must end this discussion, if Communique continues his rant. We need other things on the forum, like sending web fax #15, following senate live discussions. Such bill comes up only once in one's lifetime.
"Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?"
I think thoughtful and rational are NOT two words you would use to describe a Lou Dobbs broadcast. :D
Extremely one sided, hateful, demagogry, those words would be more accurate.
pthoko
07-17 02:00 PM
Do you always get a NEW I-94 during auto revalidation or in some cases they allow to enter on the same I-94??
Do we have to tell them anything or do anything specifically to get a new I-94??
Do we have to tell them anything or do anything specifically to get a new I-94??
more...
nojoke
12-27 06:24 AM
Ofcourse its Pakistan's responsibility since we created them. But the question is, where do you go from here?
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
If pakistan is innocent, how about handing over dawood ibrahim? or a few other terrorist to India. If not to India, why not hand them over to international court? If they don't want to do this, then it is logical for us to conclude that the pak government is involved
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
If pakistan is innocent, how about handing over dawood ibrahim? or a few other terrorist to India. If not to India, why not hand them over to international court? If they don't want to do this, then it is logical for us to conclude that the pak government is involved
2010 France is a large country in
Macaca
05-01 05:40 PM
Why China�s Crackdown is Selective (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/04/28/why-china%E2%80%99s-crackdown-is-selective/) By Minxin Pei | The Diplomat
For a one-party state that tolerates practically no open defiance of its authority, Beijing�s gentle handling of hundreds of striking truckers in Shanghai who had paralyzed operations at one of China�s largest container ports seems an anomaly. Instead of sending in riot police to break up the blockade last week, the authorities in Shanghai agreed to reduce fees levied on the truckers, who were angry over the charges and rising fuel prices.
The outcome of this incident couldn�t be more different from another recent event: the arrest of Ai Weiwei, one of China�s most prominent political activists. Ai has repeatedly defied the ruling Communist Party and, despite his international stature, Beijing decided to put him behind bars, ignoring widespread international condemnation.
The contrast between these two incidents raises an intriguing question: why does Beijing tolerate certain forms of protest, but represses others?
One obvious reason is that it depends on the nature of the protest. As a rule, a frontal challenge to the authority of the Chinese Communist Party, as Ai�s activities embodied, practically guarantees a harsh response from the government. But protest inspired by specific economic grievances, such as truckers� ire over excessive fees, seems to fare better. In the eyes of the ruling party, the former constitutes an existential threat and so no concessions are seen as able to appease political activists rejecting the very legitimacy of the regime.
In contrast, the discontent generated by well-defined economic grievances can be treated with specific concessions. One quote, allegedly from a sitting senior Politburo member, says it all: �What are the contradictions among the people?� the Politburo member supposedly asked. �(These contradictions) can all be solved by using renminbi.�
But things are a little more complicated than this. The reality is that even when dealing with protests or riots fuelled by specific socioeconomic grievances, the behavior of the Chinese authorities isn�t always consistent. Sometimes, government officials pacify protesters through the use of the renminbi, while other times they mercilessly crush such protest.
So how do we make sense of such apparent inconsistencies?
It seems that the type of response to social protest�harsh or soft�depends on a complex mix of factors such as who the protesters are, the resources and organizational capacity at their disposal, the economic sectors in which they are located, and the social repercussions of their protest. Generally speaking, highly organized protesters (such as truck drivers, discharged soldiers and officers of the People�s Liberation Army, and taxi drivers) tend to fare better. They also possess resources that can be easily and effectively deployed. Taxi and truck drivers, for example, can use their vehicles to paralyze traffic and produce instantaneous and widespread social and economic disruptions.
Former PLA servicemen, meanwhile, have a strong institutional identity and are well-connected with each other through ties forged during their military service. Research conducted by Chinese scholars shows that protests organized by former PLA servicemen tend to get the most attention�and the softest treatment�from the government. In contrast, protests by peasants are handled more harshly as they are less organized, possess few strategic assets, and have little impact beyond their villages.
Another important factor is the political calculations of local officials. Despite the popular image of the Chinese state as a hierarchical, top-down system, there�s no uniform national manual for handling protests. This leaves a great deal of discretion at the hands of local officials, but it also places them in a political quandary. Whenever a mass protest erupts, local officials have to think and react fast, but deploying riot police and using force against protesters isn�t necessarily the preferred modus operandi since this could prompt an escalation in violence. Local officials who mishandle mass protests risk demotion or even dismissal, so they must calculate how to end such demonstrations peacefully and quickly, while ensuring that their actions won�t also encourage future protests. It�s a difficult balancing act.
So what influences the political calculations of local officials?
As I�ve said, it�s in large part the nature of the protest, the strength of the protesters, and the likely effects of the protest�all are critical variables. Local officials usually avoid using violence against protests inspired by economic discontent and organized by workers in strategic sectors (transportation and energy, for example). Another factor at play is simply the amount of renminbi available to local officials for buying off the protesters. In the case of striking truckers, the Shanghai municipal government, the wealthiest local jurisdiction in China, has plenty of money. But in poorer areas, the renminbi option just doesn�t exist.
Another factor is media glare�the more media coverage (particularly international media coverage), the more constraints on local officials� use of force. Last, the location of the protest is key. When such protests happen in remote villages or towns, they are quickly and ruthlessly crushed. But when they occur in urban centres, the government (usually) responds more cautiously and gently.
All this means that the happy ending for the striking truckers in Shanghai shouldn�t be taken as an encouraging precedent for workers in other sectors who might think the government will back down in the face of economic demands�however justifiable they might be.
Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College
For a one-party state that tolerates practically no open defiance of its authority, Beijing�s gentle handling of hundreds of striking truckers in Shanghai who had paralyzed operations at one of China�s largest container ports seems an anomaly. Instead of sending in riot police to break up the blockade last week, the authorities in Shanghai agreed to reduce fees levied on the truckers, who were angry over the charges and rising fuel prices.
The outcome of this incident couldn�t be more different from another recent event: the arrest of Ai Weiwei, one of China�s most prominent political activists. Ai has repeatedly defied the ruling Communist Party and, despite his international stature, Beijing decided to put him behind bars, ignoring widespread international condemnation.
The contrast between these two incidents raises an intriguing question: why does Beijing tolerate certain forms of protest, but represses others?
One obvious reason is that it depends on the nature of the protest. As a rule, a frontal challenge to the authority of the Chinese Communist Party, as Ai�s activities embodied, practically guarantees a harsh response from the government. But protest inspired by specific economic grievances, such as truckers� ire over excessive fees, seems to fare better. In the eyes of the ruling party, the former constitutes an existential threat and so no concessions are seen as able to appease political activists rejecting the very legitimacy of the regime.
In contrast, the discontent generated by well-defined economic grievances can be treated with specific concessions. One quote, allegedly from a sitting senior Politburo member, says it all: �What are the contradictions among the people?� the Politburo member supposedly asked. �(These contradictions) can all be solved by using renminbi.�
But things are a little more complicated than this. The reality is that even when dealing with protests or riots fuelled by specific socioeconomic grievances, the behavior of the Chinese authorities isn�t always consistent. Sometimes, government officials pacify protesters through the use of the renminbi, while other times they mercilessly crush such protest.
So how do we make sense of such apparent inconsistencies?
It seems that the type of response to social protest�harsh or soft�depends on a complex mix of factors such as who the protesters are, the resources and organizational capacity at their disposal, the economic sectors in which they are located, and the social repercussions of their protest. Generally speaking, highly organized protesters (such as truck drivers, discharged soldiers and officers of the People�s Liberation Army, and taxi drivers) tend to fare better. They also possess resources that can be easily and effectively deployed. Taxi and truck drivers, for example, can use their vehicles to paralyze traffic and produce instantaneous and widespread social and economic disruptions.
Former PLA servicemen, meanwhile, have a strong institutional identity and are well-connected with each other through ties forged during their military service. Research conducted by Chinese scholars shows that protests organized by former PLA servicemen tend to get the most attention�and the softest treatment�from the government. In contrast, protests by peasants are handled more harshly as they are less organized, possess few strategic assets, and have little impact beyond their villages.
Another important factor is the political calculations of local officials. Despite the popular image of the Chinese state as a hierarchical, top-down system, there�s no uniform national manual for handling protests. This leaves a great deal of discretion at the hands of local officials, but it also places them in a political quandary. Whenever a mass protest erupts, local officials have to think and react fast, but deploying riot police and using force against protesters isn�t necessarily the preferred modus operandi since this could prompt an escalation in violence. Local officials who mishandle mass protests risk demotion or even dismissal, so they must calculate how to end such demonstrations peacefully and quickly, while ensuring that their actions won�t also encourage future protests. It�s a difficult balancing act.
So what influences the political calculations of local officials?
As I�ve said, it�s in large part the nature of the protest, the strength of the protesters, and the likely effects of the protest�all are critical variables. Local officials usually avoid using violence against protests inspired by economic discontent and organized by workers in strategic sectors (transportation and energy, for example). Another factor at play is simply the amount of renminbi available to local officials for buying off the protesters. In the case of striking truckers, the Shanghai municipal government, the wealthiest local jurisdiction in China, has plenty of money. But in poorer areas, the renminbi option just doesn�t exist.
Another factor is media glare�the more media coverage (particularly international media coverage), the more constraints on local officials� use of force. Last, the location of the protest is key. When such protests happen in remote villages or towns, they are quickly and ruthlessly crushed. But when they occur in urban centres, the government (usually) responds more cautiously and gently.
All this means that the happy ending for the striking truckers in Shanghai shouldn�t be taken as an encouraging precedent for workers in other sectors who might think the government will back down in the face of economic demands�however justifiable they might be.
Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College
more...
bondgoli007
01-06 04:03 PM
Another muslim hater who justify organized crime and killing and support the killing of innocent school kids and civilians.
Hiding behind civilians and schools and mosques???? Don't you hear the same lie again and again year over year? If Hamas is using school kids as thier shield, then how do you think Palestenian people have elected the same people who cause their kids death rule their country?
Don't you think?
Refugee Now,
I believe the thinking needs to be done by the moderate muslims like yourself all over the world. Do you agree that Hamas is a terrorist outfit? Do you agree that no good can come with them as the decision makers in Palestine? Do you agree that by NOT re electing Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah party, the people gave mandate to a outfit (Hamas) that was seeking the end of the ceasefire with Israel?
How comel you stand quite when the terrorists all over the world most of them who cite Islam or the defense of Islam as a reason to cause havoc and terror? It is clear you can have a strong voice when protesting the tragedies like in Gaza, how come the same voice is missing when the perpetrators are Islamic like in the case of Mumbai?
I whole heartedly join you in bemoaning the human loss in this conflict and pray for peace.
Hiding behind civilians and schools and mosques???? Don't you hear the same lie again and again year over year? If Hamas is using school kids as thier shield, then how do you think Palestenian people have elected the same people who cause their kids death rule their country?
Don't you think?
Refugee Now,
I believe the thinking needs to be done by the moderate muslims like yourself all over the world. Do you agree that Hamas is a terrorist outfit? Do you agree that no good can come with them as the decision makers in Palestine? Do you agree that by NOT re electing Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah party, the people gave mandate to a outfit (Hamas) that was seeking the end of the ceasefire with Israel?
How comel you stand quite when the terrorists all over the world most of them who cite Islam or the defense of Islam as a reason to cause havoc and terror? It is clear you can have a strong voice when protesting the tragedies like in Gaza, how come the same voice is missing when the perpetrators are Islamic like in the case of Mumbai?
I whole heartedly join you in bemoaning the human loss in this conflict and pray for peace.
hair germany estonia finland france
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
more...
pappu
12-26 05:44 PM
CNBC. They are also airing a programme on immigration at 8pm eastern.
Its about Illegal immigration only
8:00pm - 9:00pm, NBC (23)
Tom Brokaw Reports
The journalist travels to the Colorado Rockies to reveal the real story of illegal immigration; Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) discusses his opposition t…
Its about Illegal immigration only
8:00pm - 9:00pm, NBC (23)
Tom Brokaw Reports
The journalist travels to the Colorado Rockies to reveal the real story of illegal immigration; Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) discusses his opposition t…
hot features France, Germany,
learning01
05-17 11:30 AM
gc03:
Go and search for Lou Dobbs in this forum.
This forum is purely for discussing issues related to problems and difficulties of high skilled legal immigrants., affected by inefficiency of backlog centers, LCs and lack of visa numbers, GC issues and the consequent retrogression.
I haven't gone to the link you provided, because I don't need to. Has Mr.Dobbs advocated our issues, our goals anytime in his effort to highlight immigration issues? I don't think so. He does what is convenient for him and for his ratings and viewership.
So, please let's end this discussion here and please refrain from quoting and promoting the foul mouth Lou Dobbs.
I hope you will understand. Thanks.
Go and search for Lou Dobbs in this forum.
This forum is purely for discussing issues related to problems and difficulties of high skilled legal immigrants., affected by inefficiency of backlog centers, LCs and lack of visa numbers, GC issues and the consequent retrogression.
I haven't gone to the link you provided, because I don't need to. Has Mr.Dobbs advocated our issues, our goals anytime in his effort to highlight immigration issues? I don't think so. He does what is convenient for him and for his ratings and viewership.
So, please let's end this discussion here and please refrain from quoting and promoting the foul mouth Lou Dobbs.
I hope you will understand. Thanks.
more...
house France and Germany.
panky72
08-09 02:00 AM
Just ignore those useless weeds (who don�t know what �joke� means), not only in this thread, even in real life also.
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
:)Thanks nogc_noproblem. BTW where do you find so many funny jokes:D
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
:)Thanks nogc_noproblem. BTW where do you find so many funny jokes:D
tattoo Other maps
nixstor
11-12 08:31 PM
Regardless of the power shift in Congress, the cheap foreign labor lobby is coming on strong, pushing for legislation that would dramatically increase the number of foreign workers allowed into this country under existing guest worker programs.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Microsoft's Bill Gates this week fired the first shot in the coming fight for more cheap foreign labor. Gates warning of a shortage of high-tech workers that his company needs to be competitive.
His solution? Bringing in more foreign workers.
Critics say he's got it wrong.
STEVE CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: If we have a shortage, then the solution is to let the labor market be tight and more Americans will be attracted to those jobs as wages rise. If American business really feels that we're not teaching enough math and science in school, they need to pressure the political institutions to do a better job of teaching our kids.
TUCKER: Congress has a different solution. It's known as the Skill Act of 2006. It would nearly double the current cap on H1B visas and allow for a 20 percent increase every year after the previous year's quota was met, virtually guaranteeing an endless supply of lower-paid workers from overseas.
A study by Georgetown University found that the total potential number of new tech visas created by the Senate bill would by 1.88 million over the next decade. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics only projects a need for 1.25 million workers in computing and engineering fields. That's more visas than jobs.
Worker advocates say Congress is ready to sole a problem that doesn't exist.
KIM BERRY, PROGRAMMERS GUILD: We don't see any evidence of a shortage. A shortage under the laws of supply and demand would be an increase in wages, it would be body shops or headhunters stealing employees from other companies.
TUCKER: And that's not happening.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: No. In fact, wages are stagnant and declining. A study published by "BusinessWeek," in fact, found that the starting wages for computer scientists and engineers fell 12 percent or worse, Lou, from 2001 to 2005. It doesn't sound like a tight labor market to me.
DOBBS: No, it's just going in the opposite direction.
You know, at some point these people have got to be a little embarrassed by their shoddy economics and their lack of, let's say, integrity and intellectual honesty in what they are doing here. And perhaps at some point find a conscious in corporate America about what they are doing to working men and women in this country. You would think it would happen -- we hope sooner rather than later.
Thank you, Bill Tucker.
Wass up between these dudes? Lou and Kim? Are they buddies or more? :) .. damn.. He gets him on to his show so often as if Kim B is a prominent person. Why the hell doesnt he let America hear the other side of the story?? I mean not in this article.. in general.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Microsoft's Bill Gates this week fired the first shot in the coming fight for more cheap foreign labor. Gates warning of a shortage of high-tech workers that his company needs to be competitive.
His solution? Bringing in more foreign workers.
Critics say he's got it wrong.
STEVE CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: If we have a shortage, then the solution is to let the labor market be tight and more Americans will be attracted to those jobs as wages rise. If American business really feels that we're not teaching enough math and science in school, they need to pressure the political institutions to do a better job of teaching our kids.
TUCKER: Congress has a different solution. It's known as the Skill Act of 2006. It would nearly double the current cap on H1B visas and allow for a 20 percent increase every year after the previous year's quota was met, virtually guaranteeing an endless supply of lower-paid workers from overseas.
A study by Georgetown University found that the total potential number of new tech visas created by the Senate bill would by 1.88 million over the next decade. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics only projects a need for 1.25 million workers in computing and engineering fields. That's more visas than jobs.
Worker advocates say Congress is ready to sole a problem that doesn't exist.
KIM BERRY, PROGRAMMERS GUILD: We don't see any evidence of a shortage. A shortage under the laws of supply and demand would be an increase in wages, it would be body shops or headhunters stealing employees from other companies.
TUCKER: And that's not happening.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: No. In fact, wages are stagnant and declining. A study published by "BusinessWeek," in fact, found that the starting wages for computer scientists and engineers fell 12 percent or worse, Lou, from 2001 to 2005. It doesn't sound like a tight labor market to me.
DOBBS: No, it's just going in the opposite direction.
You know, at some point these people have got to be a little embarrassed by their shoddy economics and their lack of, let's say, integrity and intellectual honesty in what they are doing here. And perhaps at some point find a conscious in corporate America about what they are doing to working men and women in this country. You would think it would happen -- we hope sooner rather than later.
Thank you, Bill Tucker.
Wass up between these dudes? Lou and Kim? Are they buddies or more? :) .. damn.. He gets him on to his show so often as if Kim B is a prominent person. Why the hell doesnt he let America hear the other side of the story?? I mean not in this article.. in general.
more...
pictures You are free to use this map
StuckInTheMuck
08-06 12:30 PM
all until the one going down hits a trampoline and the one going up hits a ceiling. Then they reverse course. The trampoline and ceiling are the visa bulletins:
Neat :)
Neat :)
dresses map of France-Germany
rajuram
07-13 02:35 PM
Lets not worry too much about the contents of the letter. The purpose is getting their attention and also to show how many people are affected. EB3s please write this letter, ask your friends, family etc...
Also send send a copy to congress woman The Honorable Zoe Lofgren (Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security
and International Law, House Committee on the Judiciary,517 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515)
Also send send a copy to congress woman The Honorable Zoe Lofgren (Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security
and International Law, House Committee on the Judiciary,517 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515)
more...
makeup Hotel de France,
GCScrewed
07-13 09:30 AM
No matter what discouragement there is, it is definitely worth the try. With the trying, you may not get relieved. But without the trying, you will definitely not. People should also add their own arguments in the letter too. All the comments on how to make this letter better should be welcome. Now it is time to see if this community is really sticking together and if those who benefit will help those suffering.
girlfriend map of europe
sledge_hammer
03-24 11:51 AM
Can you please elaborate?
I may be understanding this incorrectly, but are they denying our right to be represented by a lawyer?
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.
I may be understanding this incorrectly, but are they denying our right to be represented by a lawyer?
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.
hairstyles Benelux - France, Germany
Macaca
02-24 07:33 PM
Indian techie slams CNN Lou Dobbs (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/10-28a-04.asp)!, N. Sivakumar, October 28, 2004
In a book titled "Dude, did I steal your job? Debugging Indian Computer programmers", the author, an Indian software engineer, has slammed Lou Dobbs of CNN for calling the foreign high-tech workers as non-tax payers, and humiliating the enormous contributions of foreign high-tech workforce to the American economy.
"Foreign high-tech workers who come here on H-1B / L1 visas pay every tax that U.S. citizens do, including Social Security and Medicare. But if they return to their homeland, then they will not get any benefits from these programs. The recent recession cost the United States more than half a million foreign high-tech workers who had to return home after paying all these taxes. In fact, Americans owe them money"
The author writes.
"The ignorance to mention the stupendous contributions of immigrant high-tech workers was the primary cause for the anti-Indian atmosphere which is seen among computer professionals lately. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the public understand the foreign high-tech workforce. The net result: those who supported the foreign high-tech worker programs have taken a back seat to play safe, and Indians and others who came here on visas, and worked their butts off to make this country prosper are named 'slaves', 'dummies', and 'enemies'. writes the author, N.Sivakumar.
The book also claims that bringing in foreign high-tech workforce at the right time was the primary reason for America's stupendous high-tech success, and gives statistics and evidence to prove that hadn't America acted quickly, the Europeans would have taken over the software dominance.
The book also outlines the life, struggle and achievements of Indian programmers in America with entertaining facts, and is a prime discussion topic in many anti-outsourcing and immigration websites lately.
In a book titled "Dude, did I steal your job? Debugging Indian Computer programmers", the author, an Indian software engineer, has slammed Lou Dobbs of CNN for calling the foreign high-tech workers as non-tax payers, and humiliating the enormous contributions of foreign high-tech workforce to the American economy.
"Foreign high-tech workers who come here on H-1B / L1 visas pay every tax that U.S. citizens do, including Social Security and Medicare. But if they return to their homeland, then they will not get any benefits from these programs. The recent recession cost the United States more than half a million foreign high-tech workers who had to return home after paying all these taxes. In fact, Americans owe them money"
The author writes.
"The ignorance to mention the stupendous contributions of immigrant high-tech workers was the primary cause for the anti-Indian atmosphere which is seen among computer professionals lately. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the public understand the foreign high-tech workforce. The net result: those who supported the foreign high-tech worker programs have taken a back seat to play safe, and Indians and others who came here on visas, and worked their butts off to make this country prosper are named 'slaves', 'dummies', and 'enemies'. writes the author, N.Sivakumar.
The book also claims that bringing in foreign high-tech workforce at the right time was the primary reason for America's stupendous high-tech success, and gives statistics and evidence to prove that hadn't America acted quickly, the Europeans would have taken over the software dominance.
The book also outlines the life, struggle and achievements of Indian programmers in America with entertaining facts, and is a prime discussion topic in many anti-outsourcing and immigration websites lately.
desi3933
08-05 04:33 PM
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
.....
.....
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Are you Rolling_Flood?
Law is what it is. It is not what you believe is correct.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
.....
.....
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Are you Rolling_Flood?
Law is what it is. It is not what you believe is correct.
sc3
07-14 05:29 PM
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
No comments:
Post a Comment