waitingmygc
08-27 10:55 PM
If employer or attorney are not helpful then there are high chances that they are hiding something, may have communicated to you I-140 approved in EB-2 whereas in real EB-3. One of my friend already have experinced same problem, EB-3 instead of EB-2. His company is in Jersey and the name starts with N.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
wallpaper mortal kombat 9 jade
ssnd03
03-04 02:57 PM
Finally some sanity on FBI Namecheck from the DHS head honcho Michael Chertoff. He is now saying things which everybody has been screaming for the last three four years. I have highlighted those. But it does take that long for wheels to turn even in the most liberal democracy.
Question: Mr. Secretary, you had, at the very beginning, laid out some great progress that's been made in terms of preventing bad people from getting in. And part of the Homeland Security mission, which is a challenging one, is that while you are responsible for protecting against bad things, you're also responsible for facilitating good things. And be that the flow of people, in this case, USCIS is responsible for that for the department. They've begun a $3.5 billion transformation. And I'm hoping you could speak to that in two ways. What's your concept of success in that, in terms of the national security part of it, the operational excellence part of it, and customer service part of it?
Secretary Chertoff: Three -- two main things. One is, we have to move from a paper-based system to a totally electronically-based system. We still have too much paper, and it's hard to track, it's hard to manage, and it takes a lot of time.
The second piece is, I want to rebuild -- re-engineer the system in a couple of ways. One is, and the most urgent, is to deal with the background check problem. It just takes way too long for the Bureau to complete background checks for a small but a significant number of people. The majority of people -- you know, if the name doesn't pop up on anything in the -- it's pretty quick. But for a small number -- but still significant, and certainly to the individual, significant -- if their name crops up and it's an older case, and it's in a file somewhere, someone has got to hunt it down. And to be perfectly honest, that is not a top priority job for an agent, is to go through an old paper record sitting in a warehouse.
Looking forward as we go electronically, and as the Bureau goes electronically, that problem will diminish. But looking backwards we have to re-engineer the system to be a little tougher. And one of the things we did, for example, with the green cards was we said, for background checks that took longer than six months, we would give you a green card, and then if it turned out the background check later revealed a problem, we would take the green card away.
Now why did we do that -- because I got criticized, �Oh, you're sacrificing national security.� Here's why. First of all, if you haven't been -- if it's going to take longer than six months, it's clear that you're not on a Terrorist Watch List, you haven't been convicted of a crime, you haven't been indicted for a crime. In other words, most of the major things you would worry about -- it's a very easy thing to determine whether you've had a problem or not. What you're not going to get in that six months is the guy whose name came up in a file somewhere. And the vast majority of those are benign mentions.
Secondly, you're here. If you're going to do something bad, you're still here legally. The green card -- it's not like we're bringing you in from overseas. So if you think about it logically, the risk of giving you the green card with the understanding that it can be pulled away if something turns up, it's a minimal risk. It's a minimal, marginal risk. Whereas the customer service value of giving someone the green card is high. That's an example of trying to be more cost-benefit in the system.
See
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=24818
Question: Mr. Secretary, you had, at the very beginning, laid out some great progress that's been made in terms of preventing bad people from getting in. And part of the Homeland Security mission, which is a challenging one, is that while you are responsible for protecting against bad things, you're also responsible for facilitating good things. And be that the flow of people, in this case, USCIS is responsible for that for the department. They've begun a $3.5 billion transformation. And I'm hoping you could speak to that in two ways. What's your concept of success in that, in terms of the national security part of it, the operational excellence part of it, and customer service part of it?
Secretary Chertoff: Three -- two main things. One is, we have to move from a paper-based system to a totally electronically-based system. We still have too much paper, and it's hard to track, it's hard to manage, and it takes a lot of time.
The second piece is, I want to rebuild -- re-engineer the system in a couple of ways. One is, and the most urgent, is to deal with the background check problem. It just takes way too long for the Bureau to complete background checks for a small but a significant number of people. The majority of people -- you know, if the name doesn't pop up on anything in the -- it's pretty quick. But for a small number -- but still significant, and certainly to the individual, significant -- if their name crops up and it's an older case, and it's in a file somewhere, someone has got to hunt it down. And to be perfectly honest, that is not a top priority job for an agent, is to go through an old paper record sitting in a warehouse.
Looking forward as we go electronically, and as the Bureau goes electronically, that problem will diminish. But looking backwards we have to re-engineer the system to be a little tougher. And one of the things we did, for example, with the green cards was we said, for background checks that took longer than six months, we would give you a green card, and then if it turned out the background check later revealed a problem, we would take the green card away.
Now why did we do that -- because I got criticized, �Oh, you're sacrificing national security.� Here's why. First of all, if you haven't been -- if it's going to take longer than six months, it's clear that you're not on a Terrorist Watch List, you haven't been convicted of a crime, you haven't been indicted for a crime. In other words, most of the major things you would worry about -- it's a very easy thing to determine whether you've had a problem or not. What you're not going to get in that six months is the guy whose name came up in a file somewhere. And the vast majority of those are benign mentions.
Secondly, you're here. If you're going to do something bad, you're still here legally. The green card -- it's not like we're bringing you in from overseas. So if you think about it logically, the risk of giving you the green card with the understanding that it can be pulled away if something turns up, it's a minimal risk. It's a minimal, marginal risk. Whereas the customer service value of giving someone the green card is high. That's an example of trying to be more cost-benefit in the system.
See
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=24818
Zee
04-06 06:10 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/washington/06immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/05/immigration/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/05/immigration/index.html
2011 mortal kombat 9 jade unmasked.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
webm
10-05 01:17 PM
"7. Aytes said they are trying to set it up that next year the EAD and Advance Paroles will be issued for more than a one year expiration and that there may possibly be one document issued for both the EAD and APs. More on this will come by the end of the year"
This news is interesting..looking forward to it....:)
This news is interesting..looking forward to it....:)
waitnwatch
05-08 11:27 PM
no offence taken njboy, i realize that you were honestly trying to help.... i was just trying to alert you that people could be sensitive to such things and during these times when we need to work together it just helps that extra bit to word our emails with care.
good luck and hope we can collectively work ourselves out of this immigration mess.
good luck and hope we can collectively work ourselves out of this immigration mess.
more...
gcformeornot
01-10 06:13 PM
please
2010 hot mortal kombat 9 jade.
GCBy3000
05-18 09:22 AM
I think employer should bear the full cost of H1B and H1B extension. It is illegal for the employer to get that money from employee.
more...
saileshdude
08-21 12:25 PM
Stop spreading misinformation. Why do they have 1800 number if the have a same set of person sitting at the US CIS office and the reason why the 1800 ppl do not transfer every call to the US CIS is because they don't want to disturb them. It is exactly because of information like this that the processing is getting delayed. The official stance of the US CIS is that you should contact 1800 number, period. If you have a written/published link which says that the ppl sitting at the service center are NOT adjudicators and are there to provide status updates then kindly share otherwise please do not spread rumours. Further if the IIO are there to provide status updates then why all of a sudden they have stopped doing that?
Kamyab,
I think IIO and adjudicators are different people with different set of responsibilities. They may have some communication channel between them but I don't think you can equate adjudicator to IIO. This I know from one of the calls I made and was told that the 485 processing is handled by a 485 unit. Secondly however random and inefficient CIS's processing maybe, they are not dumb to waste resources who have been trained and skilled to adjudicate 485 application in answering customer calls, considering how much understaffed they have been and the volume of applications to be processed.
Kamyab,
I think IIO and adjudicators are different people with different set of responsibilities. They may have some communication channel between them but I don't think you can equate adjudicator to IIO. This I know from one of the calls I made and was told that the 485 processing is handled by a 485 unit. Secondly however random and inefficient CIS's processing maybe, they are not dumb to waste resources who have been trained and skilled to adjudicate 485 application in answering customer calls, considering how much understaffed they have been and the volume of applications to be processed.
hair hot mortal kombat 9 jade
kanaihya
09-26 05:32 PM
I called the lady IO to get the RN but no luck ..90 days wait ..go to sleep mode ..
more...
saimrathi
08-10 03:51 PM
Great find..
Please post all news related info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4805&highlight=media
Please post all news related info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4805&highlight=media
hot mortal kombat 9 jade
GotFreedom?
07-23 05:28 PM
It varies from state to state based upon which money pool is used to pay the beneficiaries, but it is wise to not to go for it. You will show up as social burden at the time of adjudication and may affect the IOs descision while granting you the AOS approval or not.
Its my 2 cents. You may wanna talk to your attorney before even thinking about filing for such benefits.
Its my 2 cents. You may wanna talk to your attorney before even thinking about filing for such benefits.
more...
house mortal kombat 9 jade render.
ganeshpv
05-01 12:40 PM
Folks,
I have to visit India in June and I need to revalidate my visa that expired in April. I received my H1B extention last week, so that's no problem.
Do I have to go to one of the 4 visa application centers (mumbai, delhi, calcutta, chennai) Or can I just drop by any of the other centers (drop centers I believe, there is one in Bangalore). Website is not clear about this. There is an alluding reference in FAQ that says :
Qn: I am a returning H1-B/L-1 visa applicant, how do I apply for a revalidation?
You need to schedule an appointment for a visa interview through our website www.vfs-usa.co.in or at a visa application centre nearest to your area of residence.
Has anyone done this before? How long is it going to take? Is it similar to the drop-box that existed before?
I got an appointment in Delhi last year (7th year extention in New Delhi) But this time I can't get an appointment in any of the 4 centers.
Ganesh.
ps: I can't get appointments before June in Canada or Mexico either. :(
I have to visit India in June and I need to revalidate my visa that expired in April. I received my H1B extention last week, so that's no problem.
Do I have to go to one of the 4 visa application centers (mumbai, delhi, calcutta, chennai) Or can I just drop by any of the other centers (drop centers I believe, there is one in Bangalore). Website is not clear about this. There is an alluding reference in FAQ that says :
Qn: I am a returning H1-B/L-1 visa applicant, how do I apply for a revalidation?
You need to schedule an appointment for a visa interview through our website www.vfs-usa.co.in or at a visa application centre nearest to your area of residence.
Has anyone done this before? How long is it going to take? Is it similar to the drop-box that existed before?
I got an appointment in Delhi last year (7th year extention in New Delhi) But this time I can't get an appointment in any of the 4 centers.
Ganesh.
ps: I can't get appointments before June in Canada or Mexico either. :(
tattoo mortal kombat 9 jade. mortal
chanduv23
10-15 07:29 AM
Recently I came across a different situation where outsourcing caused to lay off GCs and citizens(Ind origins).
My friend is working in a medium company for 5 years after he got GC.
Comapany decided to outsource certain piece of project to TCS and in that effect my friend was laid off. I think in future this might more often to us who are waiting in line for GC. May be it is part of life ....
Most funniest part is company has prepared a official guidlines to employees how to communicate with indian team (which is mostly located in India).
here are examples...
1) when they say they understood every thing, do not take it seriously. Ask them explain what they knew.
2) during discussion do not use any US slangs. Talk to them in simple english.
3) do not be surprised for few new words like FUNDA, Bouncer, Sixer (cricket), Yaar,
4) know something about cricket. Indians love cricket game.
The world is flat. Any job that CAN be outsourced, will be outsourced. Now, it may be India, but other places are catching up. No matter how efficient you are and how much knowledge you have, if your job CAN be outsourced, it will be outsourced. Companies hire specialists who do the ourtsourcing process. Almost all layoffs are a result of moving the jobs out or closure of partial or complete businesses.
For outsourciong, all we need is a high speed internet connection and a skype software as a bare minimum.
Yes, this is a constantly changing world, none of the jobs are stable and things keep constantly changing. Read the book "The world is flat" by Thomas Friedman and you will understand what it is all about
My friend is working in a medium company for 5 years after he got GC.
Comapany decided to outsource certain piece of project to TCS and in that effect my friend was laid off. I think in future this might more often to us who are waiting in line for GC. May be it is part of life ....
Most funniest part is company has prepared a official guidlines to employees how to communicate with indian team (which is mostly located in India).
here are examples...
1) when they say they understood every thing, do not take it seriously. Ask them explain what they knew.
2) during discussion do not use any US slangs. Talk to them in simple english.
3) do not be surprised for few new words like FUNDA, Bouncer, Sixer (cricket), Yaar,
4) know something about cricket. Indians love cricket game.
The world is flat. Any job that CAN be outsourced, will be outsourced. Now, it may be India, but other places are catching up. No matter how efficient you are and how much knowledge you have, if your job CAN be outsourced, it will be outsourced. Companies hire specialists who do the ourtsourcing process. Almost all layoffs are a result of moving the jobs out or closure of partial or complete businesses.
For outsourciong, all we need is a high speed internet connection and a skype software as a bare minimum.
Yes, this is a constantly changing world, none of the jobs are stable and things keep constantly changing. Read the book "The world is flat" by Thomas Friedman and you will understand what it is all about
more...
pictures mortal kombat 9 jade costume.
kumar07
09-13 11:10 AM
Somebody please give me suggestions?
dresses mortal kombat 9 jade. mortal
hoolahoous
09-15 06:23 PM
How about making it standard format. That will make it easy for admins/reporters to sum it up. For e.g. millions of dollars per year paid as taxes by people stuck in GC queue will make a good impact. And so would the average amount of years a person has to wait to get GC. So format could be
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
1) Name
2) Picture(s)
3) Average Tax paid per year
4) Years in US
5) Years waited for GC
6) Number of US citizen kids (with age)
7) --Optional-- Approximate amount paid to USCIS (H1b fee x number of times ported/extended + Labor cost + I140 Cost + I485 cost + Repeated EAD/AP cost) -- I myself have over 7 H1b stamps, two labors, one I-140 , 2 I-485 and 4 EAD/AP.
8) Personal Story (nothing more captures the attention of reporters than a dramatic story) dealing with USCIS (then INS)
Feel free to improve on it.
more...
makeup mortal kombat 9 jade unmasked.
Lisap
08-03 12:16 PM
Well atleast we arent alone I guess
girlfriend mortal kombat 9 jade and
ita
05-16 10:17 AM
Called all of them
Some of them said they would pass on the message (but I noticed they didn't make a note of the bills ..I was wondering if they know these bills on the top of their head). some of them said they have received lot of calls from IV.
The person I spoke with(David) when I asked for Ruben Hinojosa said that Ruben Hinojosa is pro-immigration . He said he(David) spoke with the Congressman about these issues and said Rep. is aware of skilled immigration problems.He said that though Zoe Lofgren sub committe is sponsoring the bills Ruben is working with his colleagues in favour of the bills.
Said Democrtas are trying to get a Democrat into '' (I don't remember where now, may be White House) so a broader immigration law can be passed.
He said after August recess some of the immigration bills would be passed.
Thank you.
Some of them said they would pass on the message (but I noticed they didn't make a note of the bills ..I was wondering if they know these bills on the top of their head). some of them said they have received lot of calls from IV.
The person I spoke with(David) when I asked for Ruben Hinojosa said that Ruben Hinojosa is pro-immigration . He said he(David) spoke with the Congressman about these issues and said Rep. is aware of skilled immigration problems.He said that though Zoe Lofgren sub committe is sponsoring the bills Ruben is working with his colleagues in favour of the bills.
Said Democrtas are trying to get a Democrat into '' (I don't remember where now, may be White House) so a broader immigration law can be passed.
He said after August recess some of the immigration bills would be passed.
Thank you.
hairstyles mortal kombat 9 jade alt.
martinvisalaw
03-17 11:50 AM
1. If my PD is current, Will I eligible to apply I-485 using Employer A I-140 approved? No, not legally. You cannot base the 485 on a job offer that no longer exists. If there is a chance that Co. A will rehire you in the same position, and they will provide a letter saying that, you could file. However, there really must be an intention to be in that position when the 485 is approved or you are committing fraud.
2. What are the documents needed from employer A, if I want apply I-485?
See previous answer.
3. All my friends telling me, I can apply I-485, Is it true?
See previous answer.
2. What are the documents needed from employer A, if I want apply I-485?
See previous answer.
3. All my friends telling me, I can apply I-485, Is it true?
See previous answer.
somma
10-25 03:41 PM
My EAD status shows "card production ordered" and my spouse is showing as pending. This has been like this for the past 4 days.
Looks like they don't want to update the secondary information online.
:confused:
Looks like they don't want to update the secondary information online.
:confused:
kenpat
03-09 07:57 PM
Guys I hear you all. If you want to do something about it go to the thread 'US Housing Crisis and Employment based Green Card issues'
My original post there was
I think we should do something contrary to what everyone else is suggesting. I have been reading a lot of posts on here iv and other sites where there is talk of us shelling x amount of dollars or buying a house as a solution to help the economy which is a good thing. However on the same posts I also see contrarian views saying the economy is in bad shape and they will never want to add more immigrants its a political thing. Some of them suggested that since we have all our savings in this country with the banks and the institutions they are not going to get an added benefit other than buying up of the houses and inventory which no one wants I guess. My contrarian view is this:
We sign a proposal and send it to the congress to act on eb cases or whatever we want them to and if they dont then the immigration community should start sending back dollars to their home country. We need massive campaign and support. Think about this estimates are about 800k are waiting in labor, eb or 485 stage if we send $1000 every week from the banks institutions in the US to our own country banks it will deplete the banks reserves by 800 mln every week. How long do you think they will want this to continue in the face of a falling economy and banks with limited funds.
Another thought that comes to mind is everyone takes a day off every month on one day.
Gandhiji taught us something non cooperation and maybe thats the way forward.
Thoughts opinions are welcome�
Here are my latest comments there:
I dont know if you guys watch cnbc but there was a debate today on whether foreign workers should be allowed and one of the Guests Vivek Wadhwa a Professor at the Duke Univ in North carolina said if we let them go back can you imagine the money from Citi and Bank of america going with them and there will be a run on those banks, exactly what I have been saying they cannot afford a run on the banks. All we NEED is collective action otherwise we are all DOOMED at different times even if your 485 is pending they are finding ways to block your GC process if that is not yet evident. Join the gang or Good luck!!!
My original post there was
I think we should do something contrary to what everyone else is suggesting. I have been reading a lot of posts on here iv and other sites where there is talk of us shelling x amount of dollars or buying a house as a solution to help the economy which is a good thing. However on the same posts I also see contrarian views saying the economy is in bad shape and they will never want to add more immigrants its a political thing. Some of them suggested that since we have all our savings in this country with the banks and the institutions they are not going to get an added benefit other than buying up of the houses and inventory which no one wants I guess. My contrarian view is this:
We sign a proposal and send it to the congress to act on eb cases or whatever we want them to and if they dont then the immigration community should start sending back dollars to their home country. We need massive campaign and support. Think about this estimates are about 800k are waiting in labor, eb or 485 stage if we send $1000 every week from the banks institutions in the US to our own country banks it will deplete the banks reserves by 800 mln every week. How long do you think they will want this to continue in the face of a falling economy and banks with limited funds.
Another thought that comes to mind is everyone takes a day off every month on one day.
Gandhiji taught us something non cooperation and maybe thats the way forward.
Thoughts opinions are welcome�
Here are my latest comments there:
I dont know if you guys watch cnbc but there was a debate today on whether foreign workers should be allowed and one of the Guests Vivek Wadhwa a Professor at the Duke Univ in North carolina said if we let them go back can you imagine the money from Citi and Bank of america going with them and there will be a run on those banks, exactly what I have been saying they cannot afford a run on the banks. All we NEED is collective action otherwise we are all DOOMED at different times even if your 485 is pending they are finding ways to block your GC process if that is not yet evident. Join the gang or Good luck!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment