gc_maine2
07-05 09:38 AM
Reached NE at 9.45 signed by rob pitcher.
wallpaper 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan Cargo
gc28262
07-19 07:56 PM
My thoughts:
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
diptam
06-27 11:53 AM
Point1) makes me perplexed - Can there be agreements with open ended
time periods.
But whatever is the exit strategy i will end up paying almost $10,000 as lawyer fees.
There are many points on which this agreement can be defended.
1. No fixed time period. Staying upto 1 year after getting GC is same as saying work until the car engine for the company CEO's car goes out. Nobody can predict either one.
2. Usually waiver of filing lawsuit by employee involves sum of money for its consideration. Many employer pay employee month salary (or part/multiple) to offer agreement for not suing. Agreement terms without consideration are usually null and void. For example, I can't have agreement with you that you will deliver free newspaper without stating consideration/compensation for you.
3. Company can claim for GC Expenses and other related expenses if employee leaves within reasonable and agreed period. So probably $10,000 is in the agreement to cover that.
Now for the bad news, defending this agreement could cost much more than $10,000, besides time and hassles. More so, if employee and employer are in two different states as employer can file suit in their state. In short, $10,000 is cost of moving out of this job at the time of your choice. You could also look at it as the added cost of GC.
I suggest you should consider making a plan to move in your life and career. As they say, freedom is priceless.
Good Luck.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
time periods.
But whatever is the exit strategy i will end up paying almost $10,000 as lawyer fees.
There are many points on which this agreement can be defended.
1. No fixed time period. Staying upto 1 year after getting GC is same as saying work until the car engine for the company CEO's car goes out. Nobody can predict either one.
2. Usually waiver of filing lawsuit by employee involves sum of money for its consideration. Many employer pay employee month salary (or part/multiple) to offer agreement for not suing. Agreement terms without consideration are usually null and void. For example, I can't have agreement with you that you will deliver free newspaper without stating consideration/compensation for you.
3. Company can claim for GC Expenses and other related expenses if employee leaves within reasonable and agreed period. So probably $10,000 is in the agreement to cover that.
Now for the bad news, defending this agreement could cost much more than $10,000, besides time and hassles. More so, if employee and employer are in two different states as employer can file suit in their state. In short, $10,000 is cost of moving out of this job at the time of your choice. You could also look at it as the added cost of GC.
I suggest you should consider making a plan to move in your life and career. As they say, freedom is priceless.
Good Luck.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
2011 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan
dtekkedil
07-03 12:35 PM
My Order # FNL1782679
more...
johny
09-06 01:16 PM
No receipts yet. My file reached NSC on jul 9th. shows TSC is processing jul 2 cases. NSC is also processing some jul 2 cases.
nogreen4decade
08-25 12:08 PM
I never had a soft LUD on my 485 because of EAD renewal.... But one time I saw it, but my lawyers filed AC21 around the same time.... So I would think it was because of AC21.... So I was always under the impression that EAD renewal has no LUD's on 485, based on my experience
My wife got a soft LUD on 8/21. She has PD of Dec 2005 EB2 (I). I wa shappy to see some activity but then i saw the following thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599851-ead-renewal-but-i-485-update.html#post1981520) . It looks like some got the soft LUD on their 485 but their EAD was in process and same is the case wiht my wife. She applied for EAD renewal last month.
My wife got a soft LUD on 8/21. She has PD of Dec 2005 EB2 (I). I wa shappy to see some activity but then i saw the following thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599851-ead-renewal-but-i-485-update.html#post1981520) . It looks like some got the soft LUD on their 485 but their EAD was in process and same is the case wiht my wife. She applied for EAD renewal last month.
more...
EkAurAaya
10-30 03:46 PM
Sorry if this has already been posted
_____________________________
(c) Validity after Revocation or Withdrawal . Pursuant to the provisions of section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313, the approval of a Form I-140 employment-based (EB) immigrant petition shall remain valid when an alien changes jobs, if:
� A Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status, on the basis of the EB immigrant petition has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more; and
� The new job is in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification or approval was initially made.
If the Form I-140 has been approved and the Form I-485 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more (as measured from the form I-485 receipt date), the approved Form I-140 will remain valid even if the alien changes jobs or employers as long as the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation. If the Form I-485 has been pending for less than 180 days, then the approved Form I-140 shall not remain valid with respect to a new offer of employment.
Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of �106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer o f employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.
If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the USCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
Source: http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=3b9e27203295497d6f67778ecf8a4 0f9
_____________________________
(c) Validity after Revocation or Withdrawal . Pursuant to the provisions of section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313, the approval of a Form I-140 employment-based (EB) immigrant petition shall remain valid when an alien changes jobs, if:
� A Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status, on the basis of the EB immigrant petition has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more; and
� The new job is in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification or approval was initially made.
If the Form I-140 has been approved and the Form I-485 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more (as measured from the form I-485 receipt date), the approved Form I-140 will remain valid even if the alien changes jobs or employers as long as the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation. If the Form I-485 has been pending for less than 180 days, then the approved Form I-140 shall not remain valid with respect to a new offer of employment.
Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of �106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer o f employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.
If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the USCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
Source: http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=3b9e27203295497d6f67778ecf8a4 0f9
2010 Interior Table
ashishgour
09-21 10:53 AM
Hi,
Are there any one who filed at NSC on July 23rd and not received the receipt so far?
Thanks,
-rk.
I am in the same boat...with approved 140 from TSC.
So I believe my case might have been transferred to TSC.
Are there any one who filed at NSC on July 23rd and not received the receipt so far?
Thanks,
-rk.
I am in the same boat...with approved 140 from TSC.
So I believe my case might have been transferred to TSC.
more...
akhilmahajan
02-25 03:49 PM
Thanks a lot everyone.
Grand Total - $1845
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
Grand Total - $1845
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
hair Dodge Caravan Interior. interior specs dr minivan and accessories parts ,
rbharol
10-17 01:49 AM
IV
I have a feeling that the restrictionists may seek to attach HR 6283 along with the SKIL Bill to any appropriations bill...the restrionists have long been trying to cut family immigration (which they call chain migration)..what do you think?
NUmbers USA are asking members to send this fax to their representative...
====
Dear Representative XX
I believe that cosponsoring H.R. 6283 is the single most important immigration action you can take right now to remove injustices caused by too-high immigration and to move US toward environmental sustainability.
Until the late 1950s, America's immigration tradition of family unity had only included spouses and minor children. Since then, however, immigrants also have been allowed to sponsor send for their siblings, parents and adult children for legal admission into this country.
Because each of those can then bring in their own adult relatives and nuclear family, a single immigrant can eventually be responsible for the arrival in the United States of his/her aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, first cousins, second cousins once-removed, in a spiraling chain that eventually could reach most of the world's six billion-plus residents.
Our immigration policy, particularly as it pertains to “chain migration,” is out of control. Please put an end to it by supporting H.R. 6283.
Anti Immigrants will keep doing what they are doing and they have been doing it for long.
They have to give strong argument in favour of their claims.
Somebody can't just say we don't like the color of their skins so we do not want them here.
Let them present their views to the lawmakers and lets do our part.
I do not really like the idea of posting NumbersUSA posts here.
I do not mean to offend you.
I have a feeling that the restrictionists may seek to attach HR 6283 along with the SKIL Bill to any appropriations bill...the restrionists have long been trying to cut family immigration (which they call chain migration)..what do you think?
NUmbers USA are asking members to send this fax to their representative...
====
Dear Representative XX
I believe that cosponsoring H.R. 6283 is the single most important immigration action you can take right now to remove injustices caused by too-high immigration and to move US toward environmental sustainability.
Until the late 1950s, America's immigration tradition of family unity had only included spouses and minor children. Since then, however, immigrants also have been allowed to sponsor send for their siblings, parents and adult children for legal admission into this country.
Because each of those can then bring in their own adult relatives and nuclear family, a single immigrant can eventually be responsible for the arrival in the United States of his/her aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, first cousins, second cousins once-removed, in a spiraling chain that eventually could reach most of the world's six billion-plus residents.
Our immigration policy, particularly as it pertains to “chain migration,” is out of control. Please put an end to it by supporting H.R. 6283.
Anti Immigrants will keep doing what they are doing and they have been doing it for long.
They have to give strong argument in favour of their claims.
Somebody can't just say we don't like the color of their skins so we do not want them here.
Let them present their views to the lawmakers and lets do our part.
I do not really like the idea of posting NumbersUSA posts here.
I do not mean to offend you.
more...
glus
08-26 12:33 PM
I am in exact same situation too. The notice date for EAD renewal is July 7th, 2008. I-485 pending at NSC and EAD applied at TSC. Still waiting. I am current as my PD is EB-2 India 9/2004.
Same with me. 485 pending at NSC, EAD pending at TSC - as per instructions in I765. NO Luds, just silence.
Same with me. 485 pending at NSC, EAD pending at TSC - as per instructions in I765. NO Luds, just silence.
hot 2007 Dodge Caravan, seating,
imh1b
02-04 03:48 PM
Why is everyone making a big deal about going to India?
If you want to go , then go.
Its good for the backlog. One way to reduce the backlog if there is no bill is to encourage people to leave USA for 'green grass'. If they leave, we get our green card soon and grass will become green for us.
Let everyone be green and happy.
If you want to go , then go.
Its good for the backlog. One way to reduce the backlog if there is no bill is to encourage people to leave USA for 'green grass'. If they leave, we get our green card soon and grass will become green for us.
Let everyone be green and happy.
more...
house dodge+caravan+interior; Dodge Caravan Interior. dodge dodge caravan
PBECVictim
08-01 05:24 PM
On July 25th lawyer sent my documents 140 & 485 concurrent, PD port from previous I-140 approval (approved at Nebraska).
Reached Nebraska Service Centre on July 26th.
Will it be processed at Nebraska Service centre or Texas Service centre? According to new direct filing instructions my employer and my residence comes under Texas Service centre.
Reached Nebraska Service Centre on July 26th.
Will it be processed at Nebraska Service centre or Texas Service centre? According to new direct filing instructions my employer and my residence comes under Texas Service centre.
tattoo The Dodge Grand Caravan and
getgc2008
08-25 02:17 PM
I got approval email 3 weeks back. Does anyone know how long it takes to get the physical Card? I have not seen any updates after this. Thanks in advance
Post Decision Activity
On August 3, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS.
Post Decision Activity
On August 3, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS.
more...
pictures 1998 - Dodge Caravan
english_august
07-09 10:58 PM
Well there is a lot of media attention already. I've been talking to so many reporters and there was a huge interest in the event.
Tomorrow, there will be a bunch of media people at USCIS to talk about this, yet in the entire DC area, only nixstor is available to go to USCIS.
How can we expect major media to cover us when we are not willing to participate in something that is of benefit to us?
Tomorrow, there will be a bunch of media people at USCIS to talk about this, yet in the entire DC area, only nixstor is available to go to USCIS.
How can we expect major media to cover us when we are not willing to participate in something that is of benefit to us?
dresses 2003 - Dodge Caravan. 4 Photos
ushkand
07-20 10:03 AM
I pledge $100. Thanks IV for all your efforts.
more...
makeup 2011-Dodge-Caravan-Interior.
alterego
10-26 12:03 AM
Hi Ahimsa and other poster who questioned this:
Why SKULL bill ? As a high level manager I have learned after years of experience that you need to use good sense of humor, satirize when confronted with insanities and very stressful situations. In my life such a twaddle this immigration process has been that I need to come up to this forum and sometimes make some of us laugh a little bit from this situation. Calling it SKULL bill is a way to apply my sense of humor to this process. Please do not take this as an offense.
Please, please. Folks, didn't you see immigration-law.com and AILA.org - a reliable pro immigration sources - outlining that that anti CIR calls outnumbered the pro CIR calls 400:1 ? Go to AILA.org and research the info there by yourself if you don't trust me.
One more indication for you, which doesn't rely on biased polls:
In spite of massive lobby and muscles leveraged by the corporate sector, why do you think immigration bills - both pro legal and pro illegal - have been unsuccessful in the last two years ? Come on guys, by now you should not be questioning whether the public is against amnesty or even legal immigration. It is evident that the majority of citizens do not benefit from more immigration. Do you have an idea how much lobbying $ got involved on this without much success so far ? I am surprised that you are even raising this question. Why Americans should want more foreigners to compete with them when the real wages have declined ? That would defy logic.
Here, a fresh related evidence. Those who have an open mind should be able to understand this:
http://diversity.monster.com/articles/coming_to_america/?WT.mc_n=MNL000283
Does the Workplace Welcome Differ?
Are Americans more welcoming to Asian immigrants than to Hispanics/Latinos? C.N. Le, who directs the Asian American Studies Program at the University of Massachusetts, calls it "a complicated issue." She thinks that "Americans in general are becoming slightly less welcoming to immigrants in general. Part of it has to do with illegal immigration, but it spills over and affects legal immigrants too. There is always workplace tension between those who gets jobs, and those who get left out."
Talk about this article and get advice on the Diversity at Work message board.
Here is a fresh poll for you, since you asked:
source:numbersusa.com (the poll was not conducted by numbersusa.com though).
QUESTION A: If immigration continues at its current level for the next 50 years, experts estimate that it will add approximately 100 million people to the United States population, which currently is 300 million. Knowing this, would you say the country needs to:
% SAYING
NOTE: Typically, poll results for categories are released to the public in rounded numbers that will tend not to add up precisely to 100%.
REDUCE number of immigrants INCREASE number of immigrants Keep number the same Not sure
ALL VOTERS 64 3 26 6
Male 64 3 26 6
Female 65 2 26 6
PARTY
Democrat 59 2 32 6
Independent 59 4 31 4
Republican
Immigration is a demographic imperative for America and the rest of the western world. Fact is the modern western cultures that empower women, encourage them to the workplace, make contraception/abortion freely available and make alternative lifestyles a choice, leads to a drop in fertility rates. Liberal leaning countries have amongst the lowest fertility rates, well below replacement levels.
The above makes it an imperative to import labour and yes sheer people to take care of the old and infirm, to keep the service sector rolling even if manufacturing etc is outsourced. The only question is what kind of immigration and how much of it. In short the answer is the USA is not a dumb country, it generally always acts in its self interest faced with these choices. I believe EB immigration will soon be liberalised. This would be a smart thing especially if coupled with a crackdown on illegal immigration.
US population is growing yes, but the elderly population is exploding. More are getting older (baby boomers) and once there there they are sticking aroung longer. I wish there was a measure of working age population only, the growth of that population is probably much less than that of the general population.
Why SKULL bill ? As a high level manager I have learned after years of experience that you need to use good sense of humor, satirize when confronted with insanities and very stressful situations. In my life such a twaddle this immigration process has been that I need to come up to this forum and sometimes make some of us laugh a little bit from this situation. Calling it SKULL bill is a way to apply my sense of humor to this process. Please do not take this as an offense.
Please, please. Folks, didn't you see immigration-law.com and AILA.org - a reliable pro immigration sources - outlining that that anti CIR calls outnumbered the pro CIR calls 400:1 ? Go to AILA.org and research the info there by yourself if you don't trust me.
One more indication for you, which doesn't rely on biased polls:
In spite of massive lobby and muscles leveraged by the corporate sector, why do you think immigration bills - both pro legal and pro illegal - have been unsuccessful in the last two years ? Come on guys, by now you should not be questioning whether the public is against amnesty or even legal immigration. It is evident that the majority of citizens do not benefit from more immigration. Do you have an idea how much lobbying $ got involved on this without much success so far ? I am surprised that you are even raising this question. Why Americans should want more foreigners to compete with them when the real wages have declined ? That would defy logic.
Here, a fresh related evidence. Those who have an open mind should be able to understand this:
http://diversity.monster.com/articles/coming_to_america/?WT.mc_n=MNL000283
Does the Workplace Welcome Differ?
Are Americans more welcoming to Asian immigrants than to Hispanics/Latinos? C.N. Le, who directs the Asian American Studies Program at the University of Massachusetts, calls it "a complicated issue." She thinks that "Americans in general are becoming slightly less welcoming to immigrants in general. Part of it has to do with illegal immigration, but it spills over and affects legal immigrants too. There is always workplace tension between those who gets jobs, and those who get left out."
Talk about this article and get advice on the Diversity at Work message board.
Here is a fresh poll for you, since you asked:
source:numbersusa.com (the poll was not conducted by numbersusa.com though).
QUESTION A: If immigration continues at its current level for the next 50 years, experts estimate that it will add approximately 100 million people to the United States population, which currently is 300 million. Knowing this, would you say the country needs to:
% SAYING
NOTE: Typically, poll results for categories are released to the public in rounded numbers that will tend not to add up precisely to 100%.
REDUCE number of immigrants INCREASE number of immigrants Keep number the same Not sure
ALL VOTERS 64 3 26 6
Male 64 3 26 6
Female 65 2 26 6
PARTY
Democrat 59 2 32 6
Independent 59 4 31 4
Republican
Immigration is a demographic imperative for America and the rest of the western world. Fact is the modern western cultures that empower women, encourage them to the workplace, make contraception/abortion freely available and make alternative lifestyles a choice, leads to a drop in fertility rates. Liberal leaning countries have amongst the lowest fertility rates, well below replacement levels.
The above makes it an imperative to import labour and yes sheer people to take care of the old and infirm, to keep the service sector rolling even if manufacturing etc is outsourced. The only question is what kind of immigration and how much of it. In short the answer is the USA is not a dumb country, it generally always acts in its self interest faced with these choices. I believe EB immigration will soon be liberalised. This would be a smart thing especially if coupled with a crackdown on illegal immigration.
US population is growing yes, but the elderly population is exploding. More are getting older (baby boomers) and once there there they are sticking aroung longer. I wish there was a measure of working age population only, the growth of that population is probably much less than that of the general population.
girlfriend 1999 Dodge Caravan Interior.
simple1
05-01 02:16 PM
FB2A which is not very far behind.
I know Spouse's PD will be same as Primary's PD . But good for people who filled 485. If person has latest PD let says Aug 2007 (Eb2 india ) .. Under Eb category he may be able to file 485. But dependent may not be able to file 485 as Family quota is backlogged. Family quota also has PD and category. Under which category spouses of primary will fall ? F2A ? F2B ? do you know this ?
I know Spouse's PD will be same as Primary's PD . But good for people who filled 485. If person has latest PD let says Aug 2007 (Eb2 india ) .. Under Eb category he may be able to file 485. But dependent may not be able to file 485 as Family quota is backlogged. Family quota also has PD and category. Under which category spouses of primary will fall ? F2A ? F2B ? do you know this ?
hairstyles 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan
asdcrajnet
02-09 02:14 PM
Guys,
why are u arguing whether to go back to India or not, just go if u want to or else stay and keep quiet..
There is no need to wash India's dirty linen in public here.every country has their own issues, that includes US as well.
Admin, can we please DELETE this thread and be done with this.
Moreover why cannot a person going back to india just go back quietly instead of posting it here unless he has issues been stopped as the Immigration counter in India.
I just put it in the Interesting Topics section. I think it is easy for you to ignore it instead adding 10 lines of comment.
Peace...
why are u arguing whether to go back to India or not, just go if u want to or else stay and keep quiet..
There is no need to wash India's dirty linen in public here.every country has their own issues, that includes US as well.
Admin, can we please DELETE this thread and be done with this.
Moreover why cannot a person going back to india just go back quietly instead of posting it here unless he has issues been stopped as the Immigration counter in India.
I just put it in the Interesting Topics section. I think it is easy for you to ignore it instead adding 10 lines of comment.
Peace...
pamposh
08-18 01:14 PM
I think IV core shud take the matter with USCIS or the concerned people.
This is really not fair at all. What is the point of the PD then and to top it of there is no one we could contact and have them listen to our concerns.
This is really not fair at all. What is the point of the PD then and to top it of there is no one we could contact and have them listen to our concerns.
keerthisagar
02-08 09:52 AM
going back to india is a personal decision, and each case differs. circumstances are key in this decision process. one or more members' past experience in india will not apply...
for the people who decided to go, if you want to share your decision, please do and may be post on your experience once you have reached and settled in india.
my.02c
for the people who decided to go, if you want to share your decision, please do and may be post on your experience once you have reached and settled in india.
my.02c
No comments:
Post a Comment