belmontboy
04-10 06:56 PM
There should be tighter provisions against multiple applications [via multiple employers]. it prone to abuse - as a way to increase chances of lottery [as it happened this yr].
There is no real justification in multiple applications - though one might argue otherwise. In the end, the candidate has to work for only one employer.
Interesting stats would be how many mulitple employers applications were filed per candidate, not sure if uscis publishes them!
There is no real justification in multiple applications - though one might argue otherwise. In the end, the candidate has to work for only one employer.
Interesting stats would be how many mulitple employers applications were filed per candidate, not sure if uscis publishes them!
wallpaper How to Treat Gall Stones
when
02-29 08:42 AM
How can one find his/her receipt date if they dont have copy of their receipt notice, just the receipt notice?
mdy_tvr
02-01 04:43 PM
Guys
I recently got my 485 approved and got my card too. My wife's case is bit complicated.
I would appreciate if someone can throw light on this.
She applied her 485 in August 2007. Her 485 was seperately filed with her company since I was physically not present in US at that time in order to apply her as my dependent through my primary 485.
I applied for my 485 in Oct 2007 when I came back to US. I did not add her as dependent since she already applied for her 485.
Later in 2008 ( , my lawyer sent a letter to USCIS requesting them to link her 485 as my dependent. Now after my 485 is approved, my lawyer checked with USCIS whether her case is linked to mine. Lawyer was informed that the case is indeed linked and that her 485 will be approved anytime.
But now, my wife;s position in her company is not that good as there are layoffs happening. If God forbid she gets layed off from her current h1b status, will she be in status? can she continnue to stay in US without working?
thanks
mdy_tvr
I recently got my 485 approved and got my card too. My wife's case is bit complicated.
I would appreciate if someone can throw light on this.
She applied her 485 in August 2007. Her 485 was seperately filed with her company since I was physically not present in US at that time in order to apply her as my dependent through my primary 485.
I applied for my 485 in Oct 2007 when I came back to US. I did not add her as dependent since she already applied for her 485.
Later in 2008 ( , my lawyer sent a letter to USCIS requesting them to link her 485 as my dependent. Now after my 485 is approved, my lawyer checked with USCIS whether her case is linked to mine. Lawyer was informed that the case is indeed linked and that her 485 will be approved anytime.
But now, my wife;s position in her company is not that good as there are layoffs happening. If God forbid she gets layed off from her current h1b status, will she be in status? can she continnue to stay in US without working?
thanks
mdy_tvr
2011 Gallbladder stones, multiple
sparky_jones
12-10 01:28 PM
I recall receiving only 2 copies of AP from TSC. Is that normal?
more...
pani_6
02-09 09:48 AM
Yes this option is open...the sitiuation is getting ridicilous by the day..lets wait for couple of months so see if SKIL OR CIR take some direction..meanwhile nothin prevents us from preparing
grounds for a law suit!!
grounds for a law suit!!
joydiptac
09-30 05:37 PM
I liked the tone and tenor of aila...
Before you get all mushy about AILA and start bashing USCIS take deep look and see if AILA is really acting as a friend or a adversary in friends disguise?
Before you get all mushy about AILA and start bashing USCIS take deep look and see if AILA is really acting as a friend or a adversary in friends disguise?
more...
sury
11-15 04:17 PM
can anyone reply on this..!!
2010 Gallbladder Stone
krishna_brc
09-17 09:38 PM
Hi,
I recieved my green card last month through Consular Processing and now getting a good offer. Is it OK to join another company just after 1 month of green card or I should wait for some more time. NEED SUGGESTIONS from experts:D
If you have good relations with your employer ask them to terminate your employment. That way at the time of your naturalization/citizenship you will have an alibi for "as to why you changed employment" with in 6 months.
This way you can prove that you had the intent to work for sponsoring employer but things didn't go well with the employer himself.
Thanks,
Krishna
I recieved my green card last month through Consular Processing and now getting a good offer. Is it OK to join another company just after 1 month of green card or I should wait for some more time. NEED SUGGESTIONS from experts:D
If you have good relations with your employer ask them to terminate your employment. That way at the time of your naturalization/citizenship you will have an alibi for "as to why you changed employment" with in 6 months.
This way you can prove that you had the intent to work for sponsoring employer but things didn't go well with the employer himself.
Thanks,
Krishna
more...
gconmymind
09-29 03:35 PM
I also have soft LUD on 09/26 and 09/29...But i dont know what to read into it.
Hope there are a few more approvals today and tomorrow before dates retrogress...
Hope there are a few more approvals today and tomorrow before dates retrogress...
hair Gallbladder Stone
Berkeleybee
04-07 11:50 PM
We need to involve all those forces so that he does not resist our just and fair provisions. He must be made to realise that to have a clear moral argument about the illegals he must clearly support the legal immigrant provisions.
Posmd, this current fracas is about the battle over undocumented workers. That is the part that has to get past Sensenbrenner. I doubt he will waste his energies on us.
And please everyone, do give our strategic counsel and the people who are much closer to the battlefield than you a bit of credit -- do you think we aren't lying awake thinking of every stragem and counter-strategem? Have we shown signs of stupidity? BTW, it is IV volunteers who have written every memo in our resources page, not our strategic counsel -- you'll have to agree the people who did that have brains. :)
Posmd, this current fracas is about the battle over undocumented workers. That is the part that has to get past Sensenbrenner. I doubt he will waste his energies on us.
And please everyone, do give our strategic counsel and the people who are much closer to the battlefield than you a bit of credit -- do you think we aren't lying awake thinking of every stragem and counter-strategem? Have we shown signs of stupidity? BTW, it is IV volunteers who have written every memo in our resources page, not our strategic counsel -- you'll have to agree the people who did that have brains. :)
more...
wellwisher02
03-31 05:39 PM
Hi
I am trying to do a H1B transfer from my current employer.I am searching for a good employer(consulting firm) in Atlanta,GA area..
Can anyone advise me on a good employer.I heard that Pyramid Consulting is one big vendor in atlanta..Any inputs about Pyramid is greatly appreciated..Or any other good vendors in atlanta area?
Thanks
kp
If you're not aiming to join a fortune 500 company, try Allied Informatics. I heard it's a good company though I have never been associated with this software consulting firm.
I am trying to do a H1B transfer from my current employer.I am searching for a good employer(consulting firm) in Atlanta,GA area..
Can anyone advise me on a good employer.I heard that Pyramid Consulting is one big vendor in atlanta..Any inputs about Pyramid is greatly appreciated..Or any other good vendors in atlanta area?
Thanks
kp
If you're not aiming to join a fortune 500 company, try Allied Informatics. I heard it's a good company though I have never been associated with this software consulting firm.
hot Gallbladder Stones in Urdu
sam2006
01-21 05:02 PM
Concerning is most students do not know or care of these issues. All they want is to graduate find a job. Jobs are plenty thanks to 'Desi Consultants'.
The worst part many working pros who know of these issues hardly make an effort to work on a solution.
Either stay mum or fight for..IV members are the latter
True
All they care is catch a Desi Consultant and fake the resume So sad !!!!
The worst part many working pros who know of these issues hardly make an effort to work on a solution.
Either stay mum or fight for..IV members are the latter
True
All they care is catch a Desi Consultant and fake the resume So sad !!!!
more...
house The stones can then pass
emshal2
09-09 11:42 PM
mn
tattoo Ultrasound Findings. Figure 1:
nik.patelc
01-11 02:30 PM
I was laid off this week. I have been trying to find job and i feel its not going to be easy to find a job. If thing wont work by April, I m thinking to move back India.
PD : EB2 I - OCT 2004
I140 approved, I 485 pending > 180 days. On EAD
50 Dollars monthy contribution to IV.
PD : EB2 I - OCT 2004
I140 approved, I 485 pending > 180 days. On EAD
50 Dollars monthy contribution to IV.
more...
pictures Understanding the Gall Bladder
the_jaguar
11-21 02:50 PM
A suggestion to folks sending emails:
Please keep the first email precise and compact (typically one paragraph). If it is longer, most people will not take the time to read through it, and some of the important/hard hitting points might never be read.
While immigration is a very close and dear issue for us folks, we should not expect the rest of the country including the media to feel the same way. Hence, small & precise emails have the most impact..
If they respond to our email, then it makes sense to send them a detailed response detailing the issues legal, high skilled immigrants currently face..
Just my $0.02..
Please keep the first email precise and compact (typically one paragraph). If it is longer, most people will not take the time to read through it, and some of the important/hard hitting points might never be read.
While immigration is a very close and dear issue for us folks, we should not expect the rest of the country including the media to feel the same way. Hence, small & precise emails have the most impact..
If they respond to our email, then it makes sense to send them a detailed response detailing the issues legal, high skilled immigrants currently face..
Just my $0.02..
dresses pursuit amp; Bladder Stones
vvicky72
09-09 06:11 PM
I don't suppose mentioning a desi consultant exploiting a desi employee on H-1B would come to you as a complete surprise. Would it? Like many other Indians, I too came to US as a master's student. The study was great, but what followed was horrible. With jobs hard to find almost all of my friends had to suffer at the hands of desi consultants. Some wouldn't pay on time, some wouldn't pay at all, some wouldn't give vacations and some where just a**ho*es. Worst part? After 6 years, the situation hasn't changed a bit. These consultants still continue to exploit desis in the name of H1B. I hope one day they realize that there are other honest ways of making money, than harassing your own countrymen.
more...
makeup gall stone, gall stones,
capriol
04-15 03:11 PM
zCool,
Thank you so much, now I can make travel plans. Sincerely.
Thank you so much, now I can make travel plans. Sincerely.
girlfriend gallbladder stones,
siddar
09-04 11:09 AM
That means, after the forms signed, you got one year to apply for 485. Once applied, USCIS may request for another medical after 18 months.
This is my understanding....
This is my understanding....
hairstyles Gallbladder stones that cause
breddy2000
09-18 07:43 AM
I would say, if the intent to migrate is for GC, then the best option is come here as Nurse, as a schedule A worker.
They do get the GC very fast.I know one of my frnd who did this.
He came here to study MBA, then converted to Schedule A nursing job by writing few exams and wait for GC , once you get it then you can do what ever it takes to become a complete practicing doctor in US.
I do not know if any other details apart from this.
They do get the GC very fast.I know one of my frnd who did this.
He came here to study MBA, then converted to Schedule A nursing job by writing few exams and wait for GC , once you get it then you can do what ever it takes to become a complete practicing doctor in US.
I do not know if any other details apart from this.
jayz
07-15 01:39 PM
Congrats!
How did you get this link? The Chennai website still shows dates for July 2008?
All,
Chennai Consulate has released the August appointment schedule on their site.
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/K4oeM-zL_hPooV2orVvylA/ivappoint0808.pdf
I got an appointment too.. yahoooooooooo...
How did you get this link? The Chennai website still shows dates for July 2008?
All,
Chennai Consulate has released the August appointment schedule on their site.
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/K4oeM-zL_hPooV2orVvylA/ivappoint0808.pdf
I got an appointment too.. yahoooooooooo...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
No comments:
Post a Comment