gc28262
12-24 03:45 PM
What a tiresome thread!!!
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
Can't agree more. I wonder when IV core will wake up and start moderating these threads.
IV has become a platform to turn away people than uniting.
Maybe we can start the count-down for the death of IV as an Immigration site.
.
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
Can't agree more. I wonder when IV core will wake up and start moderating these threads.
IV has become a platform to turn away people than uniting.
Maybe we can start the count-down for the death of IV as an Immigration site.
.
wallpaper free family tree template for
ssa
06-25 03:41 PM
Do you know a single well known rich guy that still rents (and owns zero real estate)? If you are so sure that you have the math right, go ahead and name some names!
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
NeverEndingH1
12-17 04:10 PM
LOL!
Since everyone is posting what they want, I guess I can also just post anything here....
.
Since everyone is posting what they want, I guess I can also just post anything here....
.
2011 free family tree template for
jonty_11
05-29 08:27 PM
Lobbying is like bribery - but legalized here in US....the smart people here didnt want to get caught....so legislators can make lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and ilk - scapegoats.....
more...
Macaca
12-30 08:20 AM
2007: Democrats in Control, but Thwarted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123000447.html) By LAURIE KELLMAN | Associated Press, Dec 30, 2007
WASHINGTON -- It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence.
By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war split the party and cast shadows over other issues, spawning a series of legislative failures and losing confrontations with President Bush.
What to do about Iraq has turned into a dissing match so far-reaching and nasty that Congress's accomplishments are seen, even by some who run it, through the lens of their failure to override Bush and start bringing the troops home.
"There is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
It's not as if the new Democrat-controlled Congress did nothing during 2007.
It gave the nation's lowest paid workers their first raise in a decade, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour in July. It will rise to $7.25 an hour in 2009.
Congress also cut in half the interest rates on federal student loans and boosted annual Pell grants for post high-school education by $260 to $4,310 in July, rising to $5,400 for the 2012-2013 school year. Bush signed the bill after initially threatening to veto it.
And just before Congress turned out the lights for the year on Dec. 19, Bush signed into law a sweeping new energy policy that requires automakers to achieve an industrywide average fuel efficiency for cars, SUVs and small trucks of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent jump. Some analysts said the new law will render gas guzzlers relics of the past and make farmers rivals of oil companies in producing motor fuels.
"All of us deserve credit for getting some things done," Bush said in his year-end news conference, insisting that he doesn't keep score.
But on the eve of an election year with the presidency and control of Congress at stake, many others do.
In the year's firmest push-back against the Bush administration, Congress for the first time overrode one of Bush's vetoes, on a $23 billion bill for restoring hurricane-ravaged wetlands along the Gulf Coast and other water projects. The president had protested it was filled with unnecessary projects, but 34 Senate Republicans defied him.
Democrats scored other political victories as well. Most significantly, a Democrat-led investigation revealed a troubled Justice Department and forced Alberto Gonzales, a longtime presidential friend, from the attorney general's office. Democrats also played a big role in selecting his successor, Michael Mukasey.
But the story of Congress in 2007 is more about what it failed to accomplish during a war that the public opposes and that Democrats had vowed _ but did not _ to end.
On that, they found themselves repeatedly outmaneuvered, unable to break bill-killing GOP filibusters with 60 votes in a Senate where Democrats held only what effectively is a 51-49 majority.
Plans to expand health care for 10 million children stalled. And a fragile compromise put together by Bush and liberal Democrats to provide a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants buckled with only lukewarm support from all sides.
Perhaps the most bitter pill came toward the end of the year. Democrats were forced to acknowledge that the decrease in violence in Iraq might mean that Bush's much-criticized surge buildup of troops was working.
Simultaneously, they found themselves on the defensive against Republican charges that they squandered time on the war that could have been spent getting agency budgets passed on time. As usual, what has become an annual fix to the tax code to save 20 million families an average $2,000 in extra taxes was put off until the final days before Christmas.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other.
Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush's "stubbornness" and Republicans' filibuster threats "obstruction on steroids."
Republicans suggested Democrats could have accomplished big reforms on Social Security and immigration _ or even just speedy passage of the federal budget _ had it been in their election-year interests.
"I just don't think the new majority wanted to do anything significant," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
By most accounts, the window for accomplishing broad new reforms was quickly closing as the nation's political machinery rumbled into position for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. On the ballot will be all 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
At stake is a wider Democratic majority, big enough to govern. A cascade of retirements by Republicans in the Senate made that goal achievable. Democrats hoped gain seats in the House, as well.
So they labored to tout what they had accomplished in the majority. They suggested that what failed this year might pass with more Democrats elected next year.
Bush has signed into law other initiatives of the Democratic-led Congress, such as $3 billion in funding for Louisiana's Road Home program to rebuild housing stock destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Procedural and institutional reforms became law as well, such as changes in ethics and lobbying rules.
Behind the scenes, Democrats and their aides debated which fights to pick next year with a lame duck president. Most likely, they said: the children's health care bill.
Immigration reform, however, appears dead until the new Congress takes its seats in 2009.
WASHINGTON -- It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence.
By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war split the party and cast shadows over other issues, spawning a series of legislative failures and losing confrontations with President Bush.
What to do about Iraq has turned into a dissing match so far-reaching and nasty that Congress's accomplishments are seen, even by some who run it, through the lens of their failure to override Bush and start bringing the troops home.
"There is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
It's not as if the new Democrat-controlled Congress did nothing during 2007.
It gave the nation's lowest paid workers their first raise in a decade, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour in July. It will rise to $7.25 an hour in 2009.
Congress also cut in half the interest rates on federal student loans and boosted annual Pell grants for post high-school education by $260 to $4,310 in July, rising to $5,400 for the 2012-2013 school year. Bush signed the bill after initially threatening to veto it.
And just before Congress turned out the lights for the year on Dec. 19, Bush signed into law a sweeping new energy policy that requires automakers to achieve an industrywide average fuel efficiency for cars, SUVs and small trucks of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent jump. Some analysts said the new law will render gas guzzlers relics of the past and make farmers rivals of oil companies in producing motor fuels.
"All of us deserve credit for getting some things done," Bush said in his year-end news conference, insisting that he doesn't keep score.
But on the eve of an election year with the presidency and control of Congress at stake, many others do.
In the year's firmest push-back against the Bush administration, Congress for the first time overrode one of Bush's vetoes, on a $23 billion bill for restoring hurricane-ravaged wetlands along the Gulf Coast and other water projects. The president had protested it was filled with unnecessary projects, but 34 Senate Republicans defied him.
Democrats scored other political victories as well. Most significantly, a Democrat-led investigation revealed a troubled Justice Department and forced Alberto Gonzales, a longtime presidential friend, from the attorney general's office. Democrats also played a big role in selecting his successor, Michael Mukasey.
But the story of Congress in 2007 is more about what it failed to accomplish during a war that the public opposes and that Democrats had vowed _ but did not _ to end.
On that, they found themselves repeatedly outmaneuvered, unable to break bill-killing GOP filibusters with 60 votes in a Senate where Democrats held only what effectively is a 51-49 majority.
Plans to expand health care for 10 million children stalled. And a fragile compromise put together by Bush and liberal Democrats to provide a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants buckled with only lukewarm support from all sides.
Perhaps the most bitter pill came toward the end of the year. Democrats were forced to acknowledge that the decrease in violence in Iraq might mean that Bush's much-criticized surge buildup of troops was working.
Simultaneously, they found themselves on the defensive against Republican charges that they squandered time on the war that could have been spent getting agency budgets passed on time. As usual, what has become an annual fix to the tax code to save 20 million families an average $2,000 in extra taxes was put off until the final days before Christmas.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other.
Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush's "stubbornness" and Republicans' filibuster threats "obstruction on steroids."
Republicans suggested Democrats could have accomplished big reforms on Social Security and immigration _ or even just speedy passage of the federal budget _ had it been in their election-year interests.
"I just don't think the new majority wanted to do anything significant," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
By most accounts, the window for accomplishing broad new reforms was quickly closing as the nation's political machinery rumbled into position for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. On the ballot will be all 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
At stake is a wider Democratic majority, big enough to govern. A cascade of retirements by Republicans in the Senate made that goal achievable. Democrats hoped gain seats in the House, as well.
So they labored to tout what they had accomplished in the majority. They suggested that what failed this year might pass with more Democrats elected next year.
Bush has signed into law other initiatives of the Democratic-led Congress, such as $3 billion in funding for Louisiana's Road Home program to rebuild housing stock destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Procedural and institutional reforms became law as well, such as changes in ethics and lobbying rules.
Behind the scenes, Democrats and their aides debated which fights to pick next year with a lame duck president. Most likely, they said: the children's health care bill.
Immigration reform, however, appears dead until the new Congress takes its seats in 2009.
unitednations
03-24 02:39 PM
UN - why do you think USCIS allows
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
Right now USCIS is giving everyone a hard time.
I didn't even think that getting rid of labor substitution was a good thing. Much of the issues related to labor substgitution had to do with IT jobs. Although IT jobs take up a good number of greencards; it impacted other companies/people who weren't doing anything wrong with it. It was a first step in making eb harder.
I am a pretty good advocate of the staffing companies. Kill staffing companies and h-1b and employment base greencard is finished for people from india. I don't think many people realize the implications of what is going on. Staffing companies are the lifeline for employment base IT and for nurses. Thre would be no more retrogressoin as people wouldn't be able to come here. All the people who are here in so called permanent jobs will also eventually get squeezed (laid off; company mergers; promotions; more rules like tarp, etc., and they will eventually also stop doing greencards except for the most senior of senior people).
People really need to be careful right now.
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
Right now USCIS is giving everyone a hard time.
I didn't even think that getting rid of labor substitution was a good thing. Much of the issues related to labor substgitution had to do with IT jobs. Although IT jobs take up a good number of greencards; it impacted other companies/people who weren't doing anything wrong with it. It was a first step in making eb harder.
I am a pretty good advocate of the staffing companies. Kill staffing companies and h-1b and employment base greencard is finished for people from india. I don't think many people realize the implications of what is going on. Staffing companies are the lifeline for employment base IT and for nurses. Thre would be no more retrogressoin as people wouldn't be able to come here. All the people who are here in so called permanent jobs will also eventually get squeezed (laid off; company mergers; promotions; more rules like tarp, etc., and they will eventually also stop doing greencards except for the most senior of senior people).
People really need to be careful right now.
more...
unitednations
07-17 12:37 PM
My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regurarly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?
A decent number of people were in this situation during those two years.
uscis if they want can go all the way back to date of last entry prior to filing 485 to prove status (monthly paychecks, w2's, etc.). If cumulatively you did not maintain status for 180 days then it can be a problem. If you get this type of rfe then you have to go through great lengths to explain and get the out of status time to less then 180 days.
A decent number of people were in this situation during those two years.
uscis if they want can go all the way back to date of last entry prior to filing 485 to prove status (monthly paychecks, w2's, etc.). If cumulatively you did not maintain status for 180 days then it can be a problem. If you get this type of rfe then you have to go through great lengths to explain and get the out of status time to less then 180 days.
2010 family tree template for
StuckInTheMuck
08-05 02:13 PM
Dick Cheney walks into the Oval Office and sees The President whooping and hollering.
"What's the matter, Mr. President?" The Vice President inquired.
"Nothing at all, Dickie. I just done finished a jigsaw puzzle in record time!" The President beamed.
"How long did it take you?"
"Well, the box said '3 to 5 Years' but I did it in a month!"
"What's the matter, Mr. President?" The Vice President inquired.
"Nothing at all, Dickie. I just done finished a jigsaw puzzle in record time!" The President beamed.
"How long did it take you?"
"Well, the box said '3 to 5 Years' but I did it in a month!"
more...
abcdgc
12-27 01:06 AM
Well...
Thats a bit like asking one's father to explain the actions of Josef Fritzl.
Why are you so obsessed with Jews? No reason to go in circles trying to obfuscate the subject.
Are you not from Pakistan? Why are you asking others to explain the reason why Pakistani Prime Minister/Foreign Minster and ISI is doing what they are doing? Shouldn't you be the one to explain why they are doing all this drama? Why are you asking others to explain why your country is behaving erratically?
Thats a bit like asking one's father to explain the actions of Josef Fritzl.
Why are you so obsessed with Jews? No reason to go in circles trying to obfuscate the subject.
Are you not from Pakistan? Why are you asking others to explain the reason why Pakistani Prime Minister/Foreign Minster and ISI is doing what they are doing? Shouldn't you be the one to explain why they are doing all this drama? Why are you asking others to explain why your country is behaving erratically?
hair 2011 family tree template for
Gravitation
03-25 08:27 AM
Ok, so everytime I see a rent vs buy discussion I see apartment living compared with living in a house. This may not apply to a lot of other places but here's how it goes in SF Bay Area:
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
Buying a house is a long term move. Not a short term. The payment for house will remain (pretty much) the same for 30 years! Rental prices will go up every year. And after 30 years of payments, the house will be all yours.
You're also neglecting the tax savings. There'll be appx. $900 per month in tax saving (assuming 25% tax bracket).
Unless you can think and plan 5~10 years ahead (at least), real estate is not for you.
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
Buying a house is a long term move. Not a short term. The payment for house will remain (pretty much) the same for 30 years! Rental prices will go up every year. And after 30 years of payments, the house will be all yours.
You're also neglecting the tax savings. There'll be appx. $900 per month in tax saving (assuming 25% tax bracket).
Unless you can think and plan 5~10 years ahead (at least), real estate is not for you.
more...
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
hot house free family tree
srkamath
07-13 02:15 PM
Whoever, plans to put their name and signature on this letter ......
" Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003..when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from TOP US universities) our Labors were sent back from DOL saying that the Economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 non RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years. " - sounds awkward, someone with better writing skills needs to re-write this.
"....most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time.... " - So why didn't/couldn't/wouldn't you?
"After having followed the rules set by DOL and the USCIS and waited patiently in line ignoring the short cut routes of substitute labor or converting to EB2 categories we applied for I-485 in June 07 to get our EAD's. " - I-485 to get EAD ??? Doesn't make sense....
The whole letter sounds like you are demanding some kind of entitlement......and are suggesting that those who applied for EB2 under PERM did something wrong?
" Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003..when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from TOP US universities) our Labors were sent back from DOL saying that the Economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 non RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years. " - sounds awkward, someone with better writing skills needs to re-write this.
"....most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time.... " - So why didn't/couldn't/wouldn't you?
"After having followed the rules set by DOL and the USCIS and waited patiently in line ignoring the short cut routes of substitute labor or converting to EB2 categories we applied for I-485 in June 07 to get our EAD's. " - I-485 to get EAD ??? Doesn't make sense....
The whole letter sounds like you are demanding some kind of entitlement......and are suggesting that those who applied for EB2 under PERM did something wrong?
more...
house 2010 family tree template.
saileshdude
08-05 07:49 AM
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
I originally filed in EB2 but yet I do not support this idea. I think EB3 people if possible should deserve a chance to file in EB2 if they are eligible. Also porting helps you (original EB2 guys) in another way. Suppose for some stupid reason, you have to restart your GC process, wouldn't you want to be able to port your earlier PD? Don't be selfish man.
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
I originally filed in EB2 but yet I do not support this idea. I think EB3 people if possible should deserve a chance to file in EB2 if they are eligible. Also porting helps you (original EB2 guys) in another way. Suppose for some stupid reason, you have to restart your GC process, wouldn't you want to be able to port your earlier PD? Don't be selfish man.
tattoo Free family tree template
pete
04-10 04:12 PM
Its important to understand the root cause for the retrogression. Illegals dont have categories and categories in the EB GCs are there for a reason. It makes a world of a difference for somebody who is EB2 or EB3 if the person was from say.. Bangladesh. If EB2 he is all set if EB3 he will be languishing here. I am EB2 and am in trouble because of CONSULTANTS and yes I have a problem with that.
Fighting between EB categories shows how shallow our debates can turn out to be! Rhimzim & all, do the illegals differentiate between meat packers, seamstresses, window cleaners etc.? Why waste time and energy?
Fighting between EB categories shows how shallow our debates can turn out to be! Rhimzim & all, do the illegals differentiate between meat packers, seamstresses, window cleaners etc.? Why waste time and energy?
more...
pictures free family tree templates
nk2006
09-30 10:13 AM
I was schocked to find out on Sep 22 that my I-485 has been denied. My wife is on AP and can't enter U.S now withot her H4.
Sorry to know your troubles. I am curious about the reason for 485 rejection and how you are going about it (is it because of using AC21 and I140 revocation by previous employer?) - there is an effort to deal with I-485 rejections without NOID - there is a separate thread on that with conf call today. Please join the call and give your details. Thanks.
Sorry to know your troubles. I am curious about the reason for 485 rejection and how you are going about it (is it because of using AC21 and I140 revocation by previous employer?) - there is an effort to deal with I-485 rejections without NOID - there is a separate thread on that with conf call today. Please join the call and give your details. Thanks.
dresses family tree template kids.
Macaca
05-18 05:23 PM
Guilty by Association (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/17/guilty_by_association) By RACHEL BEITARIE | Foreign Policy
On a quiet block in western Beijing where otherwise only a few retirees can be seen walking their dogs or trimming their bushes, one building is under constant and conspicuous surveillance. A plainclothes policeman stands guard before an entranceway, while another keeps watch sitting inside a small cabin.
The unlikely object of the Chinese state's attention in this instance is Liu Xia, a painter, poet, and photographer -- and the wife of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. Guilty by association, she has been under house arrest, with almost no contact with the outside world, since November 2010, when her husband's award was announced. No one has heard from Liu since February, and her friends are increasingly worried about her health. Still, there is no sign that the authorities are planning to relent.
Liu's arrest underscores a peculiar aspect to the recent Chinese crackdown on political dissidents that has seen the detention of dozens of prominent activists, intellectuals, and artists. Authorities are increasingly targeting not just critics of the ruling party, but their family members, including spouses, parents, and even young children. While the dissidents gain the headlines, their relatives are punished out of the spotlight. Though the wife of jailed artist Ai Weiwei was recently allowed a visit her husband, she could be next in line to lose her freedom.
It's a punitive strategy that seeks to exploit Chinese traditions of filial piety. For China's dissidents, family is often both a source of strength and weakness: Chinese families tend to be close and highly involved in each other lives, and they take seriously the promise to stick together through thick and thin. The government, aware of these close ties, is using them to put more pressure on activists.
It also bears echoes of the Cultural Revolution-era, when many Chinese families were torn apart as spouses and children were forced to denounce loved ones labeled by the authorities as capitalist traitors and were sometimes forced to take part in their public humiliation. Today's China is again making a policy of manipulating familial love and devotion to suppress any political challenges.
"One of the more troubling trends we see in recent years has been for the government to more directly involve family members," observes Joshua Rosenzweig, a senior researcher at the Dui Hua Foundation, a U.S.-based organization dedicated to improving human rights in China. "We see surveillance, constant harassment, even extended house arrests. These all happened before, but now they have become routine" -- as in the case of Liu Xia. Rosenzweig adds, "Legal procedure has become irrelevant" in the Communist Party's quest to maintain stability. Under Chinese law, there is no procedure that allows for a person to be held indefinitely under house arrest without charges or a police investigation. "To put it simply, families are being held hostage," says Rosenzweig.
Zeng Jinyan would concur. She has been under constant surveillance and subject to frequent house arrests ever since 2001, when she met her husband, AIDS activist Hu Jia, who is now serving a three-and-a-half-year sentence for "subversion of state power." Zeng was a student when they met, and she says she never imagined her life turning out the way it did. "I thought I'll graduate, find a job, and marry. I planned on a simple life and was hoping I could have enough time and money to travel the world," she tells me in a telephone interview. But she has since become an acclaimed activist in her own right, detailing her everyday life under the party's watchful eye on her blog and Twitter account. In 2007, Time magazine included her on its list of the world's 100 most influential people. Clearly, the regime's strategy backfired in this case.
Most families, however, don't have nearly that kind of wherewithal. Take, for example, the family of Chen Guangcheng, a blind, self-taught lawyer from Shandong province who was imprisoned for four years for his work with disenfranchised villagers and woman forced to have abortions. After his release, he was forced to live in isolation in a Shandong village, together with his wife, Yuan Weijing, and their 6-year-old daughter. Yuan is denied almost all contact to the outside world, including to her son, who she sent away to be raised by relatives so that he can attend school. In February, the couple managed to smuggle a video out of the country in which they described their plight. They were reportedly beaten and denied medical treatment after the video was posted online.
On the phone, Zeng describes the successive levels of pressure that the government applies to her: "First of all, there is worrying about [Hu's] safety. For some time, we didn't even know where he was and what kind of abuse he was suffering. I worry about his health, about his mental situation."
"Then there is the question of making a living and sustaining some income as a de facto single mother," she continues. (Zeng's daughter is three-and-a-half years old. Her father was imprisoned shortly after she was born). "Because of constant police harassment, I could not get a good job or start a business. For a time, I couldn't even get a nanny for my child because when I hired one, the police would threaten her and scare her away."
Zeng says the psychological warfare she faces is brutal. Between threats and detentions, she repeatedly has to deal with the innuendo from her surveillance teams and government-sponsored neighborhood committees, which suggest there were "high-positioned" men "interested" in her and imply that she could improve her situation greatly if only she would leave her partner.
"All this is meant to isolate me from society and to break me down," Zeng concludes. "Sometimes it works. They planted deep trauma in my heart."
Although Zeng has chosen to join her husband in dissenting against the government, picking up where Hu was forced to leave off when he was arrested for his activism, some relatives of dissidents prefer to keep quiet. Still others try to actively distance themselves from activism, sometimes going so far as to move to an entirely new city or even to file for divorce. That's what happened in the case of Yang Zili, a social commentator who was imprisoned for eight years in 2001 for organizing a discussion group on political issues. His wife at the time, Lu Kun, petitioned several times on his behalf, took care of his defense and finances, and visited prison when allowed, but eventually moved to the United States. The couple divorced after Yang was released in 2009. Yang says he understood her decision. "It is just too much pressure, being the wife of a dissident in China; it's a fate many prefer to avoid," he says. Still, Lu's choice also made Yang's life more difficult: the last couple of years of his prison term he was held in almost complete isolation, with no family visits at all.
"Tactics are definitely designed to put pressure on those who contemplate political activism," Rosenzweig explains. "It is one thing to be willing to confront authorities or even go to jail, and another thing to know your family will suffer. This doesn't always deter everyone from speaking up, but it is a factor dissidents take into account." Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel laureate, referred to this factor in addressing his wife in a speech before the court that sentenced him -- after a speedy trial that Liu Xia was not allowed to attend -- to 11 years in prison: "Throughout all these years ... our love was full of bitterness imposed by outside circumstances, but as I savor its aftertaste, it remains boundless. I am serving my sentence in a tangible prison, while you wait in the intangible prison of the heart. Your love is the sunlight that leaps over high walls and penetrates the iron bars of my prison window, stroking every inch of my skin.... My love for you, on the other hand, is so full of remorse and regret that it at times makes me stagger under its weight," Liu said.
Wives (and in some cases husbands) are not the only ones who earn the attention of the state: Zeng's parents, who live in Fujian province, receive frequent police visits, while her in-laws in Beijing were put under house arrest several times. In another case, the elderly parents of an activist were threatened by the local police in their small town and were then rushed to Beijing so that they could pressure their son to stop his involvement in human rights organizations. A Shanghai lawyer, Li Tiantian, reported in February that her boyfriend was threatened that he'll be dismissed from his job on account of her activism. Li has since been taken into police custody.
On a quiet block in western Beijing where otherwise only a few retirees can be seen walking their dogs or trimming their bushes, one building is under constant and conspicuous surveillance. A plainclothes policeman stands guard before an entranceway, while another keeps watch sitting inside a small cabin.
The unlikely object of the Chinese state's attention in this instance is Liu Xia, a painter, poet, and photographer -- and the wife of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. Guilty by association, she has been under house arrest, with almost no contact with the outside world, since November 2010, when her husband's award was announced. No one has heard from Liu since February, and her friends are increasingly worried about her health. Still, there is no sign that the authorities are planning to relent.
Liu's arrest underscores a peculiar aspect to the recent Chinese crackdown on political dissidents that has seen the detention of dozens of prominent activists, intellectuals, and artists. Authorities are increasingly targeting not just critics of the ruling party, but their family members, including spouses, parents, and even young children. While the dissidents gain the headlines, their relatives are punished out of the spotlight. Though the wife of jailed artist Ai Weiwei was recently allowed a visit her husband, she could be next in line to lose her freedom.
It's a punitive strategy that seeks to exploit Chinese traditions of filial piety. For China's dissidents, family is often both a source of strength and weakness: Chinese families tend to be close and highly involved in each other lives, and they take seriously the promise to stick together through thick and thin. The government, aware of these close ties, is using them to put more pressure on activists.
It also bears echoes of the Cultural Revolution-era, when many Chinese families were torn apart as spouses and children were forced to denounce loved ones labeled by the authorities as capitalist traitors and were sometimes forced to take part in their public humiliation. Today's China is again making a policy of manipulating familial love and devotion to suppress any political challenges.
"One of the more troubling trends we see in recent years has been for the government to more directly involve family members," observes Joshua Rosenzweig, a senior researcher at the Dui Hua Foundation, a U.S.-based organization dedicated to improving human rights in China. "We see surveillance, constant harassment, even extended house arrests. These all happened before, but now they have become routine" -- as in the case of Liu Xia. Rosenzweig adds, "Legal procedure has become irrelevant" in the Communist Party's quest to maintain stability. Under Chinese law, there is no procedure that allows for a person to be held indefinitely under house arrest without charges or a police investigation. "To put it simply, families are being held hostage," says Rosenzweig.
Zeng Jinyan would concur. She has been under constant surveillance and subject to frequent house arrests ever since 2001, when she met her husband, AIDS activist Hu Jia, who is now serving a three-and-a-half-year sentence for "subversion of state power." Zeng was a student when they met, and she says she never imagined her life turning out the way it did. "I thought I'll graduate, find a job, and marry. I planned on a simple life and was hoping I could have enough time and money to travel the world," she tells me in a telephone interview. But she has since become an acclaimed activist in her own right, detailing her everyday life under the party's watchful eye on her blog and Twitter account. In 2007, Time magazine included her on its list of the world's 100 most influential people. Clearly, the regime's strategy backfired in this case.
Most families, however, don't have nearly that kind of wherewithal. Take, for example, the family of Chen Guangcheng, a blind, self-taught lawyer from Shandong province who was imprisoned for four years for his work with disenfranchised villagers and woman forced to have abortions. After his release, he was forced to live in isolation in a Shandong village, together with his wife, Yuan Weijing, and their 6-year-old daughter. Yuan is denied almost all contact to the outside world, including to her son, who she sent away to be raised by relatives so that he can attend school. In February, the couple managed to smuggle a video out of the country in which they described their plight. They were reportedly beaten and denied medical treatment after the video was posted online.
On the phone, Zeng describes the successive levels of pressure that the government applies to her: "First of all, there is worrying about [Hu's] safety. For some time, we didn't even know where he was and what kind of abuse he was suffering. I worry about his health, about his mental situation."
"Then there is the question of making a living and sustaining some income as a de facto single mother," she continues. (Zeng's daughter is three-and-a-half years old. Her father was imprisoned shortly after she was born). "Because of constant police harassment, I could not get a good job or start a business. For a time, I couldn't even get a nanny for my child because when I hired one, the police would threaten her and scare her away."
Zeng says the psychological warfare she faces is brutal. Between threats and detentions, she repeatedly has to deal with the innuendo from her surveillance teams and government-sponsored neighborhood committees, which suggest there were "high-positioned" men "interested" in her and imply that she could improve her situation greatly if only she would leave her partner.
"All this is meant to isolate me from society and to break me down," Zeng concludes. "Sometimes it works. They planted deep trauma in my heart."
Although Zeng has chosen to join her husband in dissenting against the government, picking up where Hu was forced to leave off when he was arrested for his activism, some relatives of dissidents prefer to keep quiet. Still others try to actively distance themselves from activism, sometimes going so far as to move to an entirely new city or even to file for divorce. That's what happened in the case of Yang Zili, a social commentator who was imprisoned for eight years in 2001 for organizing a discussion group on political issues. His wife at the time, Lu Kun, petitioned several times on his behalf, took care of his defense and finances, and visited prison when allowed, but eventually moved to the United States. The couple divorced after Yang was released in 2009. Yang says he understood her decision. "It is just too much pressure, being the wife of a dissident in China; it's a fate many prefer to avoid," he says. Still, Lu's choice also made Yang's life more difficult: the last couple of years of his prison term he was held in almost complete isolation, with no family visits at all.
"Tactics are definitely designed to put pressure on those who contemplate political activism," Rosenzweig explains. "It is one thing to be willing to confront authorities or even go to jail, and another thing to know your family will suffer. This doesn't always deter everyone from speaking up, but it is a factor dissidents take into account." Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel laureate, referred to this factor in addressing his wife in a speech before the court that sentenced him -- after a speedy trial that Liu Xia was not allowed to attend -- to 11 years in prison: "Throughout all these years ... our love was full of bitterness imposed by outside circumstances, but as I savor its aftertaste, it remains boundless. I am serving my sentence in a tangible prison, while you wait in the intangible prison of the heart. Your love is the sunlight that leaps over high walls and penetrates the iron bars of my prison window, stroking every inch of my skin.... My love for you, on the other hand, is so full of remorse and regret that it at times makes me stagger under its weight," Liu said.
Wives (and in some cases husbands) are not the only ones who earn the attention of the state: Zeng's parents, who live in Fujian province, receive frequent police visits, while her in-laws in Beijing were put under house arrest several times. In another case, the elderly parents of an activist were threatened by the local police in their small town and were then rushed to Beijing so that they could pressure their son to stop his involvement in human rights organizations. A Shanghai lawyer, Li Tiantian, reported in February that her boyfriend was threatened that he'll be dismissed from his job on account of her activism. Li has since been taken into police custody.
more...
makeup kids family tree template
xyzgc
02-12 10:31 PM
its all forgotten now, just wait for a bright tomorrow.:D
girlfriend 2011 family tree template for
vdixit
03-28 01:35 PM
mariner5555
Nope I am not a realtor. Just another EB2 person stuck in the never ending battle for GC. I can see your points, but financial hardships dont exactly change with GC. In this economy a GC is no guarantee for a job part-time or full-time.
The house I am talking about was in a metropolitian area so probably thats why we didnt have too much trouble selling it. Selling it was very important since we were moving out of state for jobs. So perhaps I didnt ask for too high a price-no loss however, just not the 150k profits people had seen before the crash.
I totally agree that house is a long term commitment and that location, the timing and the place you find yourself in your life are the most imp things. But I still refuse to believe that not having a GC should stop someone from simple pleasures of living such as owing a house to raise your family in.
Just my 2 cents.
Nope I am not a realtor. Just another EB2 person stuck in the never ending battle for GC. I can see your points, but financial hardships dont exactly change with GC. In this economy a GC is no guarantee for a job part-time or full-time.
The house I am talking about was in a metropolitian area so probably thats why we didnt have too much trouble selling it. Selling it was very important since we were moving out of state for jobs. So perhaps I didnt ask for too high a price-no loss however, just not the 150k profits people had seen before the crash.
I totally agree that house is a long term commitment and that location, the timing and the place you find yourself in your life are the most imp things. But I still refuse to believe that not having a GC should stop someone from simple pleasures of living such as owing a house to raise your family in.
Just my 2 cents.
hairstyles dresses free family tree
hetalvn
09-19 05:04 PM
hi
they are taking social security, medicare taxes. while we are not getting any benefit out of it. they must stop taking social. they are taking this taxes based on that they will give us permanent status. now they have delayed process near to impossible for EB-3.
Intent of social security and medicare is to support social security benefits, but when they are not granting any of this benefit they should stop taking it from us or should make green card processing faster.
they should clarify this situation since they are taking money from us.
hetal shah
hetalvn@yahoo.com
they are taking social security, medicare taxes. while we are not getting any benefit out of it. they must stop taking social. they are taking this taxes based on that they will give us permanent status. now they have delayed process near to impossible for EB-3.
Intent of social security and medicare is to support social security benefits, but when they are not granting any of this benefit they should stop taking it from us or should make green card processing faster.
they should clarify this situation since they are taking money from us.
hetal shah
hetalvn@yahoo.com
nogc_noproblem
08-28 11:12 PM
A pair of gloves
A young man wanted to purchase a gift for his new sweetie for Valentine's Day. As they had not been very long, it was very difficult decision. After careful consideration he decided a good gift would be a pair of gloves. Accompanied by his sister, he went to the store and bought the gloves. His sister purchased a pair of panties at the same time.
The clerk carefully wrapped both items but in the process got them mixed up. The sister was handed the gloves and the young man got the panties.
The young man mailed his Valentine's Day gift with the following note:
"This special Valentines Day gift was chosen because I noticed you are in the habit of not wearing any when we go out in the evenings.
These are a lovely shade, the lady I bought them from showed me the pair she had been wearing for the past three weeks and they were hardly soiled. I had her try yours on for me and they looked quite lovely.
I wish I was there to put them on you for the first time; no doubt, other hands will come into contact with them before I have a chance to see you again.
Just think how many times I'll be kissing them in the future. I hope you'll wear them Friday night for me.
Love, Cuddle Bear
p.s. The sales lady says the latest style is to wear them folded down with just a little fur showing."
A young man wanted to purchase a gift for his new sweetie for Valentine's Day. As they had not been very long, it was very difficult decision. After careful consideration he decided a good gift would be a pair of gloves. Accompanied by his sister, he went to the store and bought the gloves. His sister purchased a pair of panties at the same time.
The clerk carefully wrapped both items but in the process got them mixed up. The sister was handed the gloves and the young man got the panties.
The young man mailed his Valentine's Day gift with the following note:
"This special Valentines Day gift was chosen because I noticed you are in the habit of not wearing any when we go out in the evenings.
These are a lovely shade, the lady I bought them from showed me the pair she had been wearing for the past three weeks and they were hardly soiled. I had her try yours on for me and they looked quite lovely.
I wish I was there to put them on you for the first time; no doubt, other hands will come into contact with them before I have a chance to see you again.
Just think how many times I'll be kissing them in the future. I hope you'll wear them Friday night for me.
Love, Cuddle Bear
p.s. The sales lady says the latest style is to wear them folded down with just a little fur showing."
texcan
08-05 01:43 PM
Agree with you...
Also let me share a story ....
Once upon a time, two ferries were taking passengers to an Island called Green Land. First ferry was calle EB2 and the other ferry was Eb3. Both these ferries were jam packed with little or no room. But EB2 was in slightly better position with few spaces to spare.
These ferries were navigating at legendary slow speed because the crew and the drivers (read USCIS) were very slow. Also the fuel (read visa numbers) was not enough so now and then it needed to get some assitance from the base (read lawmakers).
The base has put out an option to move from one ferry to another. So the people in Eb3 ferry decided to swim to EB2. One who could not start cursing their fate and the ones in EB2 boat start screaming to prevent that happening.
Soon the passengers forgot that the reason why the ferries are running slow and start blaming each other.
An old man on the shore sighed and said to himself, wouldn't it be nice if these people had concentratred their effort on the right place.
Sunnysurya,
Thanks for giving me ear, and thought to my points.
Indians(myself included) were ruled by British for years, i never believed history that people can fight so much with each other that they forget to work together; now i know better.
We got to get togther and work with each other (add efforts), but sometimes we are working together but ironically against each other and net result is wasted effort.
Lets not waste energy by stopping people from actions even if we may not like their tools or techniques. Lets work more and get something done.
Thanks SunnySurya.
Also let me share a story ....
Once upon a time, two ferries were taking passengers to an Island called Green Land. First ferry was calle EB2 and the other ferry was Eb3. Both these ferries were jam packed with little or no room. But EB2 was in slightly better position with few spaces to spare.
These ferries were navigating at legendary slow speed because the crew and the drivers (read USCIS) were very slow. Also the fuel (read visa numbers) was not enough so now and then it needed to get some assitance from the base (read lawmakers).
The base has put out an option to move from one ferry to another. So the people in Eb3 ferry decided to swim to EB2. One who could not start cursing their fate and the ones in EB2 boat start screaming to prevent that happening.
Soon the passengers forgot that the reason why the ferries are running slow and start blaming each other.
An old man on the shore sighed and said to himself, wouldn't it be nice if these people had concentratred their effort on the right place.
Sunnysurya,
Thanks for giving me ear, and thought to my points.
Indians(myself included) were ruled by British for years, i never believed history that people can fight so much with each other that they forget to work together; now i know better.
We got to get togther and work with each other (add efforts), but sometimes we are working together but ironically against each other and net result is wasted effort.
Lets not waste energy by stopping people from actions even if we may not like their tools or techniques. Lets work more and get something done.
Thanks SunnySurya.