unitednations
07-10 01:42 PM
Hello United Nations..
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
No; you don't have to have a valid visa in your passport to file the 485. You are just supposed to be in non immigrant status (ie., f1, f2, h1, h4, etc.). Your I-94 card if expired; should not have expired more then six months prior to filing 485.
Auto revalidation is one of the neatest little escapes to gettting back into proper status. Essentially; when entering into usa; one needs a valid visa to enter. However; auto revalidation is when a person goes to Canada or Mexico; stays less then 30 days; doesn't try to visit another country; doesn't attempt to go for visa stamping; has a valid/unexpired I-94 card (this also means unexpired I-94 card on a notice of action) then you can re-enter usa without a valid and unexpired visa.
This concept is actually very difficult for people to believe that if their visa is expired but they have a valid i-94 card that they can go to canada and re-enter usa without a visa. since you are resetting your date of last entry by going out and coming back in then it helps greatly in using 245k since you have reset the date of your last entry into usa.
Without auto revalidation; if you wanted to go out and come back in and take advantage of 245k then you would have to go for visa stamping in order to be allowed back in. However; consulate can check back to your earliest entry into usa and ask for paystubs/w2's as far back as they want (sometiemes they will ask you for all the way back). If they don't like what they see then they may not approve the visa and you are stuck.
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
No; you don't have to have a valid visa in your passport to file the 485. You are just supposed to be in non immigrant status (ie., f1, f2, h1, h4, etc.). Your I-94 card if expired; should not have expired more then six months prior to filing 485.
Auto revalidation is one of the neatest little escapes to gettting back into proper status. Essentially; when entering into usa; one needs a valid visa to enter. However; auto revalidation is when a person goes to Canada or Mexico; stays less then 30 days; doesn't try to visit another country; doesn't attempt to go for visa stamping; has a valid/unexpired I-94 card (this also means unexpired I-94 card on a notice of action) then you can re-enter usa without a valid and unexpired visa.
This concept is actually very difficult for people to believe that if their visa is expired but they have a valid i-94 card that they can go to canada and re-enter usa without a visa. since you are resetting your date of last entry by going out and coming back in then it helps greatly in using 245k since you have reset the date of your last entry into usa.
Without auto revalidation; if you wanted to go out and come back in and take advantage of 245k then you would have to go for visa stamping in order to be allowed back in. However; consulate can check back to your earliest entry into usa and ask for paystubs/w2's as far back as they want (sometiemes they will ask you for all the way back). If they don't like what they see then they may not approve the visa and you are stuck.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
gc_on_demand
09-30 04:45 PM
If Obama becomes president can he restore the faith of high-skilled immigrant who play by the books and still have to wait for decades to get their Green Card.
After graduating with a Electrical engg degree from a top school in India, I got a job with a world leading semiconductor company. I first came to USA almost 12 years ago on a business trip as part of a multinational chip design effort for high end Telecommunication market. I was very impressed with the group of professionals I worked with. I felt the work environment stimulated the creativity in me and brought the best out of me. After the short trip I went back to my home country but that visit left a lasting impression on me and I felt USA would be the place I can further my professional abilities. Couple of years later, I came to USA for my Masters to embark on that journey. Even though I graduated when the US economy was in recession (2001), my unique skill set was much sought after and hence I got a job with a R&D startup division of a popular Japanese company. Working with a great group of professionals brought out the creativity in me. I currently have 10 US patents. The sailing was smooth until I started my Green Card process. The outdated immigration system and the long wait in the limbo state has been impacting my professional and personal life. I am starting to doubt that my American dream is slipping away day by day. I hope if Obama becomes the president he would restore some credibility to my faith in the immigration system. But if Sen. Durbin is driving Obama's immigration policy then I fear even more long waits for high-skilled immigrants because of Sen. Durbin's aggressive stance against H1B's. Mean while I have started to look at immigrant friendly countries like Australia and Canada as my possible future destination.
Obama has mentioned many times on the campaign trail that "his education" is the reason why he has risen to where he is now. I feel Obama is a person who values higher education and high-skilled professional and I do have great faith in Obama's skills, I hope he takes a strong stance on the need to reform the high-skilled immigration system.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. The companies started by those immigrants employ thousands of Americans and millions in tax revenue. Then why is America so hostile towards the same high-skilled immigration system which in the long run benefits America. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
Here is the link to the NFAP report which I talked about
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
I 100% agree with you. We are highly skilled educated people. Legally came to USA , earned Master or higher degree in field of STEM. Working hard and paying taxes , having amerincan babies but still cannot make USA as our permanant home.
It is very riskey to buy a house without having green card. Not that we will not find job if we loose current one but not sure where we end up getting job. and given housing market condition ,we will be end up loosing money if we sell house.
I have seen CIR debates for 06 - 07 , Senator Durbin was against H1b people. Even current H1b laws are very strick. After living in USA for 10-12 years if you loose job becasue of given environment and if you cannot find second soon it is possible that you may loose your legal status.
I love to see OBAMA as next president of USA. Even I am not citizen of this country but my children are. And as a responsible parent of them I wish Senator OBAMA become next president of USA. when I hear speech of Senator OBAMA & Biden I feel security of my children.
I wish Senator OBAMA will restore my trust in American Dream. Would it be appropriate if I have to move out of here along with my USA citizen children to another country ?
After graduating with a Electrical engg degree from a top school in India, I got a job with a world leading semiconductor company. I first came to USA almost 12 years ago on a business trip as part of a multinational chip design effort for high end Telecommunication market. I was very impressed with the group of professionals I worked with. I felt the work environment stimulated the creativity in me and brought the best out of me. After the short trip I went back to my home country but that visit left a lasting impression on me and I felt USA would be the place I can further my professional abilities. Couple of years later, I came to USA for my Masters to embark on that journey. Even though I graduated when the US economy was in recession (2001), my unique skill set was much sought after and hence I got a job with a R&D startup division of a popular Japanese company. Working with a great group of professionals brought out the creativity in me. I currently have 10 US patents. The sailing was smooth until I started my Green Card process. The outdated immigration system and the long wait in the limbo state has been impacting my professional and personal life. I am starting to doubt that my American dream is slipping away day by day. I hope if Obama becomes the president he would restore some credibility to my faith in the immigration system. But if Sen. Durbin is driving Obama's immigration policy then I fear even more long waits for high-skilled immigrants because of Sen. Durbin's aggressive stance against H1B's. Mean while I have started to look at immigrant friendly countries like Australia and Canada as my possible future destination.
Obama has mentioned many times on the campaign trail that "his education" is the reason why he has risen to where he is now. I feel Obama is a person who values higher education and high-skilled professional and I do have great faith in Obama's skills, I hope he takes a strong stance on the need to reform the high-skilled immigration system.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. The companies started by those immigrants employ thousands of Americans and millions in tax revenue. Then why is America so hostile towards the same high-skilled immigration system which in the long run benefits America. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
Here is the link to the NFAP report which I talked about
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
I 100% agree with you. We are highly skilled educated people. Legally came to USA , earned Master or higher degree in field of STEM. Working hard and paying taxes , having amerincan babies but still cannot make USA as our permanant home.
It is very riskey to buy a house without having green card. Not that we will not find job if we loose current one but not sure where we end up getting job. and given housing market condition ,we will be end up loosing money if we sell house.
I have seen CIR debates for 06 - 07 , Senator Durbin was against H1b people. Even current H1b laws are very strick. After living in USA for 10-12 years if you loose job becasue of given environment and if you cannot find second soon it is possible that you may loose your legal status.
I love to see OBAMA as next president of USA. Even I am not citizen of this country but my children are. And as a responsible parent of them I wish Senator OBAMA become next president of USA. when I hear speech of Senator OBAMA & Biden I feel security of my children.
I wish Senator OBAMA will restore my trust in American Dream. Would it be appropriate if I have to move out of here along with my USA citizen children to another country ?
Munna Bhai
07-09 05:06 AM
We won`t get any letter from that comapany as my husband din`t exit in good terms.(Ofcourse if they won`t pay him for months).
I do believe in our case the reasons are more to do with the officer dealing the case than with actual technical issues.
In the NOID they said the reason mainly was( he changed from company A to B to C but when he reentered he entered on B instead of C .at that time was not very knowledgeable about all this stuff)he reentry was not legal and was willful misrepresentaton of facts.
Then our lawyer in our reply sent that as long as both visas are still valid it is legal.Then now they state ok his reentry is not wrong only the paystubs part is wrong and stating he never worked for that company chose to deny.
Your case is doable, get hold of some good attorney and tell them all the fact and as long as employer-employee relationship exist, you are on valid H1b. Hence since your Husband was without paystub but his I-94 was valid,it should not create much problem.
But do get intouch with old company.
I do believe in our case the reasons are more to do with the officer dealing the case than with actual technical issues.
In the NOID they said the reason mainly was( he changed from company A to B to C but when he reentered he entered on B instead of C .at that time was not very knowledgeable about all this stuff)he reentry was not legal and was willful misrepresentaton of facts.
Then our lawyer in our reply sent that as long as both visas are still valid it is legal.Then now they state ok his reentry is not wrong only the paystubs part is wrong and stating he never worked for that company chose to deny.
Your case is doable, get hold of some good attorney and tell them all the fact and as long as employer-employee relationship exist, you are on valid H1b. Hence since your Husband was without paystub but his I-94 was valid,it should not create much problem.
But do get intouch with old company.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
Macaca
05-16 08:04 AM
Democrats Under Scrutiny As They Shape Lobbying Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051402086.html) By Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, May 15, 2007
House Democratic leaders yesterday discussed key elements of a long-awaited lobbying reform bill, which has been seen as a signal test of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to bring unprecedented transparency to the Democratic-led institution.
While the legislation would open congressional lobbying to greater public scrutiny, its contours hint at a behind-the-scenes battle by the leadership to retain its most sweeping new measures.
The bill will be unveiled today at a Democratic caucus meeting, where more changes will be discussed. At the meeting last night, party leaders debated the proposal's three most important provisions, which appear headed for varying fates.
Watchdog groups and freshman members who rode into Congress on promises of ethics reform see as most critical a section imposing stricter reporting guidelines on the practice of "bundling," in which lobbyists gather and deliver bundles of contribution checks to a member. In an effort to prevent opponents of that measure from killing the entire bill, Democrats may address bundling in a separate bill or amendment, to be introduced in tandem with the main legislation.
The House bill is likely to drop a second key provision, requiring that lobbyists who orchestrate grass-roots letter-writing and telephoning campaigns disclose their involvement.
The third new element -- a "revolving door" measure doubling, to two years, the time members must wait after leaving Congress before lobbying former colleagues -- is expected to be included in the final bill.
Other provisions impose disclosure requirements on lobbyist-paid meetings and parties, contributions to charities, and other sponsored activities. Disclosure records would be posted online, in a searchable format.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to formally draft the bill Thursday, with a vote anticipated before the Memorial Day recess.
"I believe that the voters are going to be watching carefully to see whether we address this issue," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sponsor of the bundling measure. "We are letting our members know that this is an important issue for the Democratic agenda. . . . We're very focused on getting this done."
Sponsors and watchdogs had hoped the House lobbying reform bill would go further than the Senate's version, passed with great fanfare in the opening days of the new Congress. Instead, it appears to closely track the Senate bill, which also did not include restrictions on grass-roots lobbying. In recent weeks, according to several people close to the talks, the Senate had been pushing the House to narrow the bundling restrictions in its version, by limiting reporting requirements to clearly defined fundraising agreements between lobbyists and members. The House bill as discussed would do that.
Passage of a weaker bill -- chiefly, one without bundling rules -- would disappoint watchdogs, who have waged a lobbying campaign of their own for the new law.
"I am sensing a fading of enthusiasm for lobbying and ethics reform, which is why we have to get this done as soon as we can," said Craig Holman of advocacy group Public Citizen. "The longer we wait, the weaker this bill seems to get." Holman said he is lining up legislators to introduce, as amendments, any major portions of the lobbying bill eliminated in this week's discussions.
Democrats' promise to end the "culture of corruption" they said developed in Washington under Republican rule helped propel the party into the majority in November elections. They quickly tightened the rules over travel, meals and gifts from lobbyists, and improved disclosure rules for earmarks -- the pet projects that lawmakers tuck into legislation.
But a task force appointed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) to look into creating an independent entity to investigate ethics charges against lawmakers has missed its May 1 deadline for issuing recommendations, amid foot-dragging by members opposed to the idea.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said the party's leadership considers ethics reform "an obligation."
"We as a party successfully talked about a culture of corruption, and one of the pledges we made was to change that," he said. To do so, he added, "you've got to change the laws, and people's attitudes."
House Democratic leaders yesterday discussed key elements of a long-awaited lobbying reform bill, which has been seen as a signal test of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to bring unprecedented transparency to the Democratic-led institution.
While the legislation would open congressional lobbying to greater public scrutiny, its contours hint at a behind-the-scenes battle by the leadership to retain its most sweeping new measures.
The bill will be unveiled today at a Democratic caucus meeting, where more changes will be discussed. At the meeting last night, party leaders debated the proposal's three most important provisions, which appear headed for varying fates.
Watchdog groups and freshman members who rode into Congress on promises of ethics reform see as most critical a section imposing stricter reporting guidelines on the practice of "bundling," in which lobbyists gather and deliver bundles of contribution checks to a member. In an effort to prevent opponents of that measure from killing the entire bill, Democrats may address bundling in a separate bill or amendment, to be introduced in tandem with the main legislation.
The House bill is likely to drop a second key provision, requiring that lobbyists who orchestrate grass-roots letter-writing and telephoning campaigns disclose their involvement.
The third new element -- a "revolving door" measure doubling, to two years, the time members must wait after leaving Congress before lobbying former colleagues -- is expected to be included in the final bill.
Other provisions impose disclosure requirements on lobbyist-paid meetings and parties, contributions to charities, and other sponsored activities. Disclosure records would be posted online, in a searchable format.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to formally draft the bill Thursday, with a vote anticipated before the Memorial Day recess.
"I believe that the voters are going to be watching carefully to see whether we address this issue," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sponsor of the bundling measure. "We are letting our members know that this is an important issue for the Democratic agenda. . . . We're very focused on getting this done."
Sponsors and watchdogs had hoped the House lobbying reform bill would go further than the Senate's version, passed with great fanfare in the opening days of the new Congress. Instead, it appears to closely track the Senate bill, which also did not include restrictions on grass-roots lobbying. In recent weeks, according to several people close to the talks, the Senate had been pushing the House to narrow the bundling restrictions in its version, by limiting reporting requirements to clearly defined fundraising agreements between lobbyists and members. The House bill as discussed would do that.
Passage of a weaker bill -- chiefly, one without bundling rules -- would disappoint watchdogs, who have waged a lobbying campaign of their own for the new law.
"I am sensing a fading of enthusiasm for lobbying and ethics reform, which is why we have to get this done as soon as we can," said Craig Holman of advocacy group Public Citizen. "The longer we wait, the weaker this bill seems to get." Holman said he is lining up legislators to introduce, as amendments, any major portions of the lobbying bill eliminated in this week's discussions.
Democrats' promise to end the "culture of corruption" they said developed in Washington under Republican rule helped propel the party into the majority in November elections. They quickly tightened the rules over travel, meals and gifts from lobbyists, and improved disclosure rules for earmarks -- the pet projects that lawmakers tuck into legislation.
But a task force appointed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) to look into creating an independent entity to investigate ethics charges against lawmakers has missed its May 1 deadline for issuing recommendations, amid foot-dragging by members opposed to the idea.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said the party's leadership considers ethics reform "an obligation."
"We as a party successfully talked about a culture of corruption, and one of the pledges we made was to change that," he said. To do so, he added, "you've got to change the laws, and people's attitudes."
more...
Macaca
05-20 06:06 PM
Are Young College Grads Too Lazy to Work? (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/are-young-college-grads-too-lazy-to-work/) By CATHERINE RAMPELL | New York Times
I�ve received a lot of passionate (and angry) e-mails in response to my article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/economy/19grads.html) today on the employment fate of recent college graduates. While the messages from young people almost uniformly expressed frustration at the job market they�d been thrust into, some of the e-mails from older readers argued that today�s college graduates were having trouble finding jobs because they hadn�t worked hard enough. For example, a reader named Norman Berger asks why graduates wonder why they prove worthless to a potential employer when they follow this approach:
Take �soft� subjects, be lulled into complacency by grade inflation, have teachers who are tenured and don�t care how rigorously you think, start partying on Wednesdays, take 3-4 courses per semester/quarter and spend 5-6 years to graduate, study six hours per week (at best), believe in all of the liberal causes which produce soft qualative rather than quantative thinking, learn to hate the capitalistic system, don�t care when you get out of school that you�ll still be living at home, etc �
As we�ve written before, today�s college students do indeed spend less time studying (http://papers.nber.org/papers/w15954), and get higher grades, than their counterparts from a generation ago did. And most young graduates are leaning heavily on their family for financial support. More than one in five are living with their parents or other relatives, and many are getting help from family members for other expenses, as shown in the chart below.
But today�s college students also have spent a lot of time working, well before graduation.
Sixty percent of the graduates of the college classes of 2006 through 2010 said they held a part-time job while enrolled in school, not including jobs held during the summer or between semesters. Another 23 percent said they were working full time or both full and part time during school, according to a new study released by Rutgers.
For 44 percent of students, work or personal savings helped finance their schooling.
�Based on the finding that young people overwhelmingly were working in college, I don�t think this is a generation of slackers,� said Carl Van Horn, a labor economist at Rutgers and co-author of the study. �This image of the kid who goes off and skis in Colorado, I don�t think that�s the correct image. Today�s young people are very focused on trying to work hard and to get ahead.�
Tuition Skyrockets -- While Learning Plummets (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/20/tuition_skyrockets_--_while_learning_plummets_109937.html) By Rich Lowry | New York Post
Where are the jobs? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/unemployment-where-are-the-jobs/) Washington Post
The Rise of the Five-Year Four-Year Degree (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/the-rise-of-the-five-year-four-year-degree/) By Judith Scott-Clayton | Economix
Are Talent Acquisitions a Sign of a New Bubble? (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/are-talent-acquisitions-a-sign-of-a-new-bubble/) By MIGUEL HELFT | New York Times
I�ve received a lot of passionate (and angry) e-mails in response to my article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/economy/19grads.html) today on the employment fate of recent college graduates. While the messages from young people almost uniformly expressed frustration at the job market they�d been thrust into, some of the e-mails from older readers argued that today�s college graduates were having trouble finding jobs because they hadn�t worked hard enough. For example, a reader named Norman Berger asks why graduates wonder why they prove worthless to a potential employer when they follow this approach:
Take �soft� subjects, be lulled into complacency by grade inflation, have teachers who are tenured and don�t care how rigorously you think, start partying on Wednesdays, take 3-4 courses per semester/quarter and spend 5-6 years to graduate, study six hours per week (at best), believe in all of the liberal causes which produce soft qualative rather than quantative thinking, learn to hate the capitalistic system, don�t care when you get out of school that you�ll still be living at home, etc �
As we�ve written before, today�s college students do indeed spend less time studying (http://papers.nber.org/papers/w15954), and get higher grades, than their counterparts from a generation ago did. And most young graduates are leaning heavily on their family for financial support. More than one in five are living with their parents or other relatives, and many are getting help from family members for other expenses, as shown in the chart below.
But today�s college students also have spent a lot of time working, well before graduation.
Sixty percent of the graduates of the college classes of 2006 through 2010 said they held a part-time job while enrolled in school, not including jobs held during the summer or between semesters. Another 23 percent said they were working full time or both full and part time during school, according to a new study released by Rutgers.
For 44 percent of students, work or personal savings helped finance their schooling.
�Based on the finding that young people overwhelmingly were working in college, I don�t think this is a generation of slackers,� said Carl Van Horn, a labor economist at Rutgers and co-author of the study. �This image of the kid who goes off and skis in Colorado, I don�t think that�s the correct image. Today�s young people are very focused on trying to work hard and to get ahead.�
Tuition Skyrockets -- While Learning Plummets (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/20/tuition_skyrockets_--_while_learning_plummets_109937.html) By Rich Lowry | New York Post
Where are the jobs? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/unemployment-where-are-the-jobs/) Washington Post
The Rise of the Five-Year Four-Year Degree (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/the-rise-of-the-five-year-four-year-degree/) By Judith Scott-Clayton | Economix
Are Talent Acquisitions a Sign of a New Bubble? (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/are-talent-acquisitions-a-sign-of-a-new-bubble/) By MIGUEL HELFT | New York Times
gimme_GC2006
04-13 02:58 PM
ok..never mind..I called the officer and informed that I don't have any such information and since it was taken over by a different company, I am not in a position to get it..so Officer seemed satisified but asked few other related questions..and it is good for now..
sigh..
sigh..
more...
Macaca
05-01 06:05 PM
A New Immigration Consensus
A bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors have joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703387904576279293334248326.html)
By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG | Wall Street Journal
Last month, President Obama convened a diverse group of business executives, mayors, law enforcement leaders, ministers and advocates at the White House to discuss a problem that threatens America's economic future�our broken immigration system.
We've tried before to fix it. President George W. Bush made comprehensive immigration reform a major legislative priority during his second term. Congressional leaders from both parties, including Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain, worked tirelessly to pass legislation. But the bill could not garner the required votes. Nor could a much narrower bill, the Dream Act, which would have granted legal status to the children of immigrants who enroll in college or the military.
These defeats have led to a conventional wisdom in Washington that bipartisan immigration reform is impossible. But a new consensus on immigration reform has emerged in the business community that could break the logjam and provide a much-needed jolt to our economy. The idea is simple: Reform the way we attract and keep talented and hard-working people from abroad to better promote economic growth.
In the global economy, the countries that attract the world's best, brightest and hardest-working will grow and succeed. Those that refuse them entry will not. America has long understood this. We would not have become a global superpower without opening our doors to immigrants�and we cannot long remain one without continuing that practice. Smart, self-motivated immigrants spur the innovations and create the jobs our economy needs to thrive. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, 25% of high-tech startups in the U.S. had at least one immigrant as a key founder. Those companies alone have created 450,000 jobs�with the vast majority of them going to Americans.
Our global competitors understand how crucial immigrants are to economic growth. They roll out the red carpet for entrepreneurs; we have no entrepreneur visa. They heavily recruit our advanced-degree students; we educate them and send them home. They woo the engineers, scientists and other skilled professionals who invent new products, launch product lines, and develop the technology of tomorrow; we erect arbitrary, senseless and bureaucratic barriers to recruitment. And we do all this even as our unemployment rate hovers around 9%.
Although each party claims to have the solution to our country's economic woes, neither has embraced a job-creation strategy based on immigration reform, which would not add a penny to the national debt. To spur them into action, a bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors has joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. In nine months the Partnership for a New American Economy has grown to more than 200 members, including companies that together employ more than 3.5 million people.
We believe in the need to secure our borders, make it possible to hold businesses accountable for verifying the status of workers, address the reality that 11 million people are here illegally and cannot be deported en masse�and increase lawful opportunities for those who want to come to this country and contribute to our prosperity. Nevertheless, our nation cannot afford to wait for Washington to get its act together and pass comprehensive immigration reform. There is too much at stake. Our economy demands that we take immediate action on the most urgent�and politically attainable�reform: making it easier for job creators to come and stay here.
Creating a visa for entrepreneurs who already have funding to start their businesses will lead directly and immediately to American jobs. Visa reforms to improve temporary and permanent pathways for companies to fill the current shortages of engineers, scientists and other specialists�whose annual visa caps are often exhausted within days of becoming available�will spur growth at existing U.S. companies.
Providing visas to the brightest foreign graduates of our universities will allow our economy to reap the rewards of their work. At the same time, allowing immigrants who succeed in college, or serve in our military, the chance to pursue a career and build their lives here legally will strengthen the long-term health of the American economy.
Finally, developing a reliable way for employers to hire guest workers�who grow the nation's food, support our $1.3 trillion tourism industry, and fill seasonal gaps across industries�will help support U.S. businesses and create additional, better-paying American jobs.
Those who focus on where the parties differ on immigration, rather than where they both agree, have paralyzed the debate in Washington for far too long. Despite this deadlock, there is an opportunity for both parties to seize upon the economics of immigration reform and focus on what all Americans agree we need: more jobs. Leaders of both parties talk about creating jobs, but they are ignoring the voices of business leaders who can actually create them�if only Congress would give them the tools.
Mr. Bloomberg, an independent, is mayor of New York City
In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio shrugs off a rough April (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arpaio-trouble-20110501,0,3084923.story) By Nicholas Riccardi | Los Angeles Times
Obama renews call for immigration action in Miami speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-renews-call-for-immigration-action-in-miami-speech/2011/04/29/AFbdHUHF_story.html) By Perry Bacon Jr. | The Washington Post
A bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors have joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703387904576279293334248326.html)
By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG | Wall Street Journal
Last month, President Obama convened a diverse group of business executives, mayors, law enforcement leaders, ministers and advocates at the White House to discuss a problem that threatens America's economic future�our broken immigration system.
We've tried before to fix it. President George W. Bush made comprehensive immigration reform a major legislative priority during his second term. Congressional leaders from both parties, including Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain, worked tirelessly to pass legislation. But the bill could not garner the required votes. Nor could a much narrower bill, the Dream Act, which would have granted legal status to the children of immigrants who enroll in college or the military.
These defeats have led to a conventional wisdom in Washington that bipartisan immigration reform is impossible. But a new consensus on immigration reform has emerged in the business community that could break the logjam and provide a much-needed jolt to our economy. The idea is simple: Reform the way we attract and keep talented and hard-working people from abroad to better promote economic growth.
In the global economy, the countries that attract the world's best, brightest and hardest-working will grow and succeed. Those that refuse them entry will not. America has long understood this. We would not have become a global superpower without opening our doors to immigrants�and we cannot long remain one without continuing that practice. Smart, self-motivated immigrants spur the innovations and create the jobs our economy needs to thrive. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, 25% of high-tech startups in the U.S. had at least one immigrant as a key founder. Those companies alone have created 450,000 jobs�with the vast majority of them going to Americans.
Our global competitors understand how crucial immigrants are to economic growth. They roll out the red carpet for entrepreneurs; we have no entrepreneur visa. They heavily recruit our advanced-degree students; we educate them and send them home. They woo the engineers, scientists and other skilled professionals who invent new products, launch product lines, and develop the technology of tomorrow; we erect arbitrary, senseless and bureaucratic barriers to recruitment. And we do all this even as our unemployment rate hovers around 9%.
Although each party claims to have the solution to our country's economic woes, neither has embraced a job-creation strategy based on immigration reform, which would not add a penny to the national debt. To spur them into action, a bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors has joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. In nine months the Partnership for a New American Economy has grown to more than 200 members, including companies that together employ more than 3.5 million people.
We believe in the need to secure our borders, make it possible to hold businesses accountable for verifying the status of workers, address the reality that 11 million people are here illegally and cannot be deported en masse�and increase lawful opportunities for those who want to come to this country and contribute to our prosperity. Nevertheless, our nation cannot afford to wait for Washington to get its act together and pass comprehensive immigration reform. There is too much at stake. Our economy demands that we take immediate action on the most urgent�and politically attainable�reform: making it easier for job creators to come and stay here.
Creating a visa for entrepreneurs who already have funding to start their businesses will lead directly and immediately to American jobs. Visa reforms to improve temporary and permanent pathways for companies to fill the current shortages of engineers, scientists and other specialists�whose annual visa caps are often exhausted within days of becoming available�will spur growth at existing U.S. companies.
Providing visas to the brightest foreign graduates of our universities will allow our economy to reap the rewards of their work. At the same time, allowing immigrants who succeed in college, or serve in our military, the chance to pursue a career and build their lives here legally will strengthen the long-term health of the American economy.
Finally, developing a reliable way for employers to hire guest workers�who grow the nation's food, support our $1.3 trillion tourism industry, and fill seasonal gaps across industries�will help support U.S. businesses and create additional, better-paying American jobs.
Those who focus on where the parties differ on immigration, rather than where they both agree, have paralyzed the debate in Washington for far too long. Despite this deadlock, there is an opportunity for both parties to seize upon the economics of immigration reform and focus on what all Americans agree we need: more jobs. Leaders of both parties talk about creating jobs, but they are ignoring the voices of business leaders who can actually create them�if only Congress would give them the tools.
Mr. Bloomberg, an independent, is mayor of New York City
In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio shrugs off a rough April (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arpaio-trouble-20110501,0,3084923.story) By Nicholas Riccardi | Los Angeles Times
Obama renews call for immigration action in Miami speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-renews-call-for-immigration-action-in-miami-speech/2011/04/29/AFbdHUHF_story.html) By Perry Bacon Jr. | The Washington Post
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:44 PM
A man was sitting reading his papers when his wife hit him round the head with a frying pan.
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
more...
ilwaiting
06-01 09:00 AM
I'm confused in the first place, How a public telivision channel like CNN allows to air this show. I'm sure there would have been stuanch critizicism for this show even in the political arena. His offending and never ending seemingly senseless talk on immigration aims at the Congress and even President on their reforms. Agree that we are in a world of freedom of speech but this is crossing the limits.
The problem is most often the information and numbers given on this show are not actual facts and often exaggerated and misleading. The info looks most likely derived from FAIR or NumbersUSA or Heritage foundation or one of their associates.
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
The problem is most often the information and numbers given on this show are not actual facts and often exaggerated and misleading. The info looks most likely derived from FAIR or NumbersUSA or Heritage foundation or one of their associates.
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
gimme_GC2006
03-24 12:24 PM
No; I am saying I am suspicious of original poster because when in local USCIS offices they swear you in that you are going to tell the truth and if you don't have a lawyer with you then they make you sign a statement that you are self representing yourself at the itnerview.
Because of these formalities; I have my doubts with a Phone call received from the local office and asking for documnets, questions on some very substantive matters without going through the formalities that local uscis office is supposed to do.
- I went to two local uscis office interviews; so I am pretty versed in their procedure.
can you kindly enlighten me on what you exactly mean by "suspicious" original poster?
Yeah..even I went to local office..without attorney..they didnt ask me to sign a statement..just sworn
Because of these formalities; I have my doubts with a Phone call received from the local office and asking for documnets, questions on some very substantive matters without going through the formalities that local uscis office is supposed to do.
- I went to two local uscis office interviews; so I am pretty versed in their procedure.
can you kindly enlighten me on what you exactly mean by "suspicious" original poster?
Yeah..even I went to local office..without attorney..they didnt ask me to sign a statement..just sworn
more...
anai
12-24 11:14 AM
.
.
.
.
Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
If you are talking about Rahul Dravid, I think he already owns a lot of land in various parts of India.
.
.
.
Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
If you are talking about Rahul Dravid, I think he already owns a lot of land in various parts of India.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
nogc_noproblem
08-06 11:34 PM
A little old lady goes to the doctor and says ...
..., "Doctor, I have this problem with gas, but it doesn't really bother me too much. They never smell and are always silent. As a matter of fact, I've farted at least 20 times since I've been here in your office. You didn't know I was farting because they don't smell and are silent."
The doctor says, "I see. Here's a prescription. Take these pills 3 times a day for seven days and come back to see me next week."
The next week the lady goes back. "Doctor," she says, "I don't know what the hell you gave me, but now my farts ... although still silent... stink terribly."
The doctor says, "Good! Now that we've cleared up your sinuses, let's start working on your hearing."
..., "Doctor, I have this problem with gas, but it doesn't really bother me too much. They never smell and are always silent. As a matter of fact, I've farted at least 20 times since I've been here in your office. You didn't know I was farting because they don't smell and are silent."
The doctor says, "I see. Here's a prescription. Take these pills 3 times a day for seven days and come back to see me next week."
The next week the lady goes back. "Doctor," she says, "I don't know what the hell you gave me, but now my farts ... although still silent... stink terribly."
The doctor says, "Good! Now that we've cleared up your sinuses, let's start working on your hearing."
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
sledge_hammer
12-24 12:00 PM
You, being an Indian by nationality, hate India so much and I can only imagine what a Pakistani terrorist would think! You were born in India, got your education from there, have friends and family there, but still, in a heart beat, side with the terrorists that kill innocent Indians.
I've heard this numerous times and I now know it for a fact - Muslims love their religion more than the country. It is, now even more clear, who MOST Indian muslims will side with in case of a dispute between India and Pakistan.
How old is the technique of discrediting my links to win the argument. Of course, if I tell you of all the atrocities of Indian army in Kashmir, or punjab, or assam, to you I am a muslim, and my default I hate India. Of course, it wouldn't matter if good old amnesty internationl would raise a red flag against india...
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves
wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...
... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm
... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!
I've heard this numerous times and I now know it for a fact - Muslims love their religion more than the country. It is, now even more clear, who MOST Indian muslims will side with in case of a dispute between India and Pakistan.
How old is the technique of discrediting my links to win the argument. Of course, if I tell you of all the atrocities of Indian army in Kashmir, or punjab, or assam, to you I am a muslim, and my default I hate India. Of course, it wouldn't matter if good old amnesty internationl would raise a red flag against india...
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves
wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...
... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm
... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
sledge_hammer
06-05 02:14 PM
It would be the most foolish thing to do to pay cash for your home, no matter how small your starter home is. If you make let's say 20% down, then you leverage is 80%, and so you are building equity on 100% of your home by only putting down 20%. The interest you pay on it now is 5%. What other investment can you leverage 1:4, get tax deductions on your interest, AND build equity?
You may argue that margin buying is the same. But is that's not tax deductible!
>> First off, a house is really both an investment and a home.
If you look at the historical rate of appreciation vs. the risks involved - I think you will come to the same conclusion as I did - that it is a lousy investment in mature markets like US.
The scenario is different in India. I believe (based on my assumptions and calculations) that the risk/reward ratio is much more favourable there.
The intangible value of a "home" is the only reason I will ever "buy" a house here - because it is a lousy investment. For me - that tipping point is when I can afford a starter home for cash (it is a differnet topic that I will take a mortgage even then. If there is any problem with the title - the mortgage company is there to fight for me - so it acts as a second layer of insurance). It should not be as far off as you think if you are ready to settle for a small starter home AND actively invest (rather than spend) the principal payment you would have paid towards your mortgage every month.
You may argue that margin buying is the same. But is that's not tax deductible!
>> First off, a house is really both an investment and a home.
If you look at the historical rate of appreciation vs. the risks involved - I think you will come to the same conclusion as I did - that it is a lousy investment in mature markets like US.
The scenario is different in India. I believe (based on my assumptions and calculations) that the risk/reward ratio is much more favourable there.
The intangible value of a "home" is the only reason I will ever "buy" a house here - because it is a lousy investment. For me - that tipping point is when I can afford a starter home for cash (it is a differnet topic that I will take a mortgage even then. If there is any problem with the title - the mortgage company is there to fight for me - so it acts as a second layer of insurance). It should not be as far off as you think if you are ready to settle for a small starter home AND actively invest (rather than spend) the principal payment you would have paid towards your mortgage every month.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
ItIsNotFunny
12-17 03:11 PM
Looks like his initial intentions were not bad but discussion went on wrong direction.
Shanti! Shanti!
Marphad,
In the recent past, I have expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not gone away, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to dicsuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
Shanti! Shanti!
Marphad,
In the recent past, I have expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not gone away, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to dicsuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
Macaca
12-29 07:52 PM
Foreign dignitaries chafe at TSA policies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205461.html) By Colum Lynch | Washington Post
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's ambassador to the United Nations, last month ran headfirst into a controversial new Transportation Security Administration inspection policy for many foreign travelers.
At the airport in Austin, TSA agents demanded to inspect his turban. Puri is a Sikh, whose religion requires that the turban, or dastar, be worn in public to cover uncut hair. Puri refused the TSA order, citing an agency exception that allows Sikhs to pat down their own turbans to avoid intrusive searches and then have their hands tested for possible explosives.
The situation escalated when TSA agents initially ignored Puri's protestations and said they would decide what the rules are, according to an official traveling with the ambassador.
Puri told an Indian newspaper that the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes after he asked a supervisor to intervene.
The incident underscores the sometimes bumpy relationship between the TSA and foreign delegations traveling to the United States in an era of heightened security.
Diplomats are required to submit to searches, which intensified for many foreign travelers to the United States in January. The TSA put in place special procedures for greater scrutiny of individuals from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, prompting complaints from Muslim governments. (India was not on the list.)
In April, "enhanced random security measures" for all passengers were put into effect - including pat-downs, sniffing dogs and more rigorous explosives testing. And last month, the TSA approved even more invasive body searches, which posed particularly sensitive issues for passengers with certain religious beliefs and medical issues.
For globe-trotting diplomats, the U.S. government has offered since 2007 a list of "tips" to help them get through "the screening process easily and efficiently." It advises foreign dignitaries to carry two sets of credentials and warns that "screening may include a hand-wanding procedure and pat-down inspection." Searches, the memo says, will be conducted out of public view.
The episode involving Puri has roiled sensibilities in India, where Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna complained this month about the TSA's pat-downs of Meera Shankar, the country's ambassador to the United States. Krishna said Shankar was frisked twice in three months, most recently when she was pulled aside at the Jackson, Miss., airport and subjected to a body search by a female TSA agent.
"Let me be very frank that this is unacceptable," Krishna said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the State Department would look into the matter and try to take steps to avoid such international incidents.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement: "The threat to aviation is a global challenge and every airport in the world is wrestling with how to best protect the flying public with as little friction as possible. We are all in this together. Our citizens are affected and those of other countries. Our diplomats are impacted, so are the diplomats of other countries. These situations in this country are certainly not unique."
A TSA spokesman defended the treatment of Puri and Shankar. The overwhelming majority of 2 million U.S. air travelers, the official said, have had a positive experience using the nation's airports.
Puri "was not required to remove his turban, and our officers worked with him to complete screening according to established procedures," said spokesman Nicholas Kimball. "We will continue working with our officers to reinforce all established policies, including those pertaining to the respectful screening of religious headwear and clothing."
Kimball also said that a review of Shankar's pat-down in Jackson demonstrated that the TSA agents "followed proper procedure."
"United States airport security policies accommodate those individuals with religious, medical or other reasons for which the passenger cannot or wishes not to remove a certain item of clothing," Kimball added. "For religious headwear, a passenger can pat the item down themselves and then have their hand tested for traces of explosive residue."
In March, a State Department goodwill tour of the United States for a delegation of Pakistani lawmakers backfired after the group was asked to submit to additional screening on a flight from Washington to New Orleans. The lawmakers refused to board. The Pakistani army recalled a military delegation from Washington after the officers were subjected to what it called "unwarranted" searches.
Many of the incidents involve domestic flights at airports where TSA agents may have less exposure to foreign fliers than those at major international airports. One U.N. official, an American citizen of South Asian extraction, traveling with his American wife and children, said he often gets pulled aside for pat-downs and "random searches."
He said his youngest daughter recently recalled her memories of a flight: "I remember, we go on the airplane, and I take my shoes off, and you take your shoes off, and the men take Papa away and touch him everywhere," the girl told her mother.
But other diplomats from South Asia say they have had no trouble with the TSA.
Anwarul Chowdhury, a former Bangladeshi ambassador to the United Nations, said he has traveled without problems for more than a decade as a foreign and U.N. official. He recently returned from a trip to Spain without incident. "We had smooth sailing," he said. "My wife also wears a sari all the time. I don't wear a turban, but I think they were extremely courteous, very nice."
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's ambassador to the United Nations, last month ran headfirst into a controversial new Transportation Security Administration inspection policy for many foreign travelers.
At the airport in Austin, TSA agents demanded to inspect his turban. Puri is a Sikh, whose religion requires that the turban, or dastar, be worn in public to cover uncut hair. Puri refused the TSA order, citing an agency exception that allows Sikhs to pat down their own turbans to avoid intrusive searches and then have their hands tested for possible explosives.
The situation escalated when TSA agents initially ignored Puri's protestations and said they would decide what the rules are, according to an official traveling with the ambassador.
Puri told an Indian newspaper that the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes after he asked a supervisor to intervene.
The incident underscores the sometimes bumpy relationship between the TSA and foreign delegations traveling to the United States in an era of heightened security.
Diplomats are required to submit to searches, which intensified for many foreign travelers to the United States in January. The TSA put in place special procedures for greater scrutiny of individuals from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, prompting complaints from Muslim governments. (India was not on the list.)
In April, "enhanced random security measures" for all passengers were put into effect - including pat-downs, sniffing dogs and more rigorous explosives testing. And last month, the TSA approved even more invasive body searches, which posed particularly sensitive issues for passengers with certain religious beliefs and medical issues.
For globe-trotting diplomats, the U.S. government has offered since 2007 a list of "tips" to help them get through "the screening process easily and efficiently." It advises foreign dignitaries to carry two sets of credentials and warns that "screening may include a hand-wanding procedure and pat-down inspection." Searches, the memo says, will be conducted out of public view.
The episode involving Puri has roiled sensibilities in India, where Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna complained this month about the TSA's pat-downs of Meera Shankar, the country's ambassador to the United States. Krishna said Shankar was frisked twice in three months, most recently when she was pulled aside at the Jackson, Miss., airport and subjected to a body search by a female TSA agent.
"Let me be very frank that this is unacceptable," Krishna said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the State Department would look into the matter and try to take steps to avoid such international incidents.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement: "The threat to aviation is a global challenge and every airport in the world is wrestling with how to best protect the flying public with as little friction as possible. We are all in this together. Our citizens are affected and those of other countries. Our diplomats are impacted, so are the diplomats of other countries. These situations in this country are certainly not unique."
A TSA spokesman defended the treatment of Puri and Shankar. The overwhelming majority of 2 million U.S. air travelers, the official said, have had a positive experience using the nation's airports.
Puri "was not required to remove his turban, and our officers worked with him to complete screening according to established procedures," said spokesman Nicholas Kimball. "We will continue working with our officers to reinforce all established policies, including those pertaining to the respectful screening of religious headwear and clothing."
Kimball also said that a review of Shankar's pat-down in Jackson demonstrated that the TSA agents "followed proper procedure."
"United States airport security policies accommodate those individuals with religious, medical or other reasons for which the passenger cannot or wishes not to remove a certain item of clothing," Kimball added. "For religious headwear, a passenger can pat the item down themselves and then have their hand tested for traces of explosive residue."
In March, a State Department goodwill tour of the United States for a delegation of Pakistani lawmakers backfired after the group was asked to submit to additional screening on a flight from Washington to New Orleans. The lawmakers refused to board. The Pakistani army recalled a military delegation from Washington after the officers were subjected to what it called "unwarranted" searches.
Many of the incidents involve domestic flights at airports where TSA agents may have less exposure to foreign fliers than those at major international airports. One U.N. official, an American citizen of South Asian extraction, traveling with his American wife and children, said he often gets pulled aside for pat-downs and "random searches."
He said his youngest daughter recently recalled her memories of a flight: "I remember, we go on the airplane, and I take my shoes off, and you take your shoes off, and the men take Papa away and touch him everywhere," the girl told her mother.
But other diplomats from South Asia say they have had no trouble with the TSA.
Anwarul Chowdhury, a former Bangladeshi ambassador to the United Nations, said he has traveled without problems for more than a decade as a foreign and U.N. official. He recently returned from a trip to Spain without incident. "We had smooth sailing," he said. "My wife also wears a sari all the time. I don't wear a turban, but I think they were extremely courteous, very nice."
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Macaca
12-27 06:39 PM
Onions vs. Corruption on the Outrage Scale (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/27/onions-vs-corruption-on-the-outrage-scale/) By Rupa Subramanya Dehejia | IndiaRealTime
Are we a democracy in name only? Is the Indian electorate apathetic? Why aren�t people marching in the streets protesting the recent spate of corruption scams?
Well, OK, some marched last Wednesday as the BJP sponsored demonstrations against corruption in the major metros. But it was hardly a spontaneous and large-scale outpouring of popular disaffection. And it was rather late at that.
While India�s political classes and the English speaking elite are working themselves into a rhetorical frenzy over the succession of scandals that have beset the United Progressive Alliance government, contrast this to the apparent complete lack of engagement by the common man. While most Indian commentary has focused on the political intrigue within Delhi, Paul Beckett in the WSJ remarked on the fact that �this is the sort of event that in a less apathetic democracy would lead to genuinely convulsive outrage.�
At least every five years, India is a vibrant democracy, with a high participation rate and a robust tendency to punish incumbents who perform poorly, even more so than in most Western democracies. But why do we become so lethargic in between? Where are the convulsions that we surely should be seeing?
Recently, I�ve been posing this question to just about everyone I meet from Mumbai taxi drivers, construction crew in the neighboring apartment, Twitter followers, and whomever else I can buttonhole. Some professed no interest, saying that all of their energy and time are occupied by putting food on the table. Others expressed a sense of helplessness: �I�m a day laborer barely making ends meet; how can I influence what these big politicians do? Who will listen to me?�
This sense of resignation needs to be questioned. If common folk felt that helpless, why would they bother to vote in such large numbers and turf out politicians they don�t like every time an election comes around? As the recent state election in Bihar demonstrates, voters are quite prepared to reward good governance and punish grandstanding populism. Clearly, as an electorate, we�re responsive and agile when we want to be.
So what�s going on?
One hypothesis is that people largely see this as political theater. So long as the economy is booming and there�s no direct impact on their pocketbook, it�s business as usual. Let�s not forget when existential questions such as land acquisition or the price of staples are at issue, we do see the common man coming out on the streets and expressing his displeasure, forcing governments to react. Witness the recent uproar over the price of onions.
The estimated $40 billion loss to the exchequer from selling the 2G spectrum below its value is money not spent on electrifying Indian towns and villages, building schools and hospitals, etc. Why don�t people see it this way? It is not merely a �presumptive� loss as Kapil Sabil contended to Barkha Dutt on NDTV recently but a real economic loss. After all, a rupee not earned is a rupee wasted.
Another reason could be that two-thirds of the people are poor and don�t pay much in the way of income taxes. Perhaps they don�t see the recent scams as costing them. Contrast this to the West where every allegation of government money misused is widely portrayed as a waste of taxpayers� money and galvanizes opposition. In India, the bulk of the tax base is rich individuals and corporations who, as we should expect, are the ones who�ve been screaming loudest about the recent scandals.
A related explanation may be that there�s been a failure by the opposition parties in articulating the cost to the common man of these various scams. Broad and sweeping condemnations of corruption don�t speak directly to the fact that the money lost could have been used for productive social ends. The talking heads on cable news channels and the pundits in print seem so caught up in the minute details of parliamentary and judicial procedures that they miss the forest for the trees.
The crux of the matter is this: government strategists have presumably deduced that none of these recent scams will be consequential at the polls. What animates the common man is not television debates between Anglicized lawyers who use fancy words but fundamental issues such as food, water and land. Despite all of our economic progress, there remains a fundamental divide between the interests of the urban middle and upper classes and of the poor, whether urban or rural.
Until that changes, the price of onions will always be politically more salient than whatever corruption scandal is making headlines, and will dictate electoral fortunes.
Do you agree? Share your thoughts in the Comments section.
Are we a democracy in name only? Is the Indian electorate apathetic? Why aren�t people marching in the streets protesting the recent spate of corruption scams?
Well, OK, some marched last Wednesday as the BJP sponsored demonstrations against corruption in the major metros. But it was hardly a spontaneous and large-scale outpouring of popular disaffection. And it was rather late at that.
While India�s political classes and the English speaking elite are working themselves into a rhetorical frenzy over the succession of scandals that have beset the United Progressive Alliance government, contrast this to the apparent complete lack of engagement by the common man. While most Indian commentary has focused on the political intrigue within Delhi, Paul Beckett in the WSJ remarked on the fact that �this is the sort of event that in a less apathetic democracy would lead to genuinely convulsive outrage.�
At least every five years, India is a vibrant democracy, with a high participation rate and a robust tendency to punish incumbents who perform poorly, even more so than in most Western democracies. But why do we become so lethargic in between? Where are the convulsions that we surely should be seeing?
Recently, I�ve been posing this question to just about everyone I meet from Mumbai taxi drivers, construction crew in the neighboring apartment, Twitter followers, and whomever else I can buttonhole. Some professed no interest, saying that all of their energy and time are occupied by putting food on the table. Others expressed a sense of helplessness: �I�m a day laborer barely making ends meet; how can I influence what these big politicians do? Who will listen to me?�
This sense of resignation needs to be questioned. If common folk felt that helpless, why would they bother to vote in such large numbers and turf out politicians they don�t like every time an election comes around? As the recent state election in Bihar demonstrates, voters are quite prepared to reward good governance and punish grandstanding populism. Clearly, as an electorate, we�re responsive and agile when we want to be.
So what�s going on?
One hypothesis is that people largely see this as political theater. So long as the economy is booming and there�s no direct impact on their pocketbook, it�s business as usual. Let�s not forget when existential questions such as land acquisition or the price of staples are at issue, we do see the common man coming out on the streets and expressing his displeasure, forcing governments to react. Witness the recent uproar over the price of onions.
The estimated $40 billion loss to the exchequer from selling the 2G spectrum below its value is money not spent on electrifying Indian towns and villages, building schools and hospitals, etc. Why don�t people see it this way? It is not merely a �presumptive� loss as Kapil Sabil contended to Barkha Dutt on NDTV recently but a real economic loss. After all, a rupee not earned is a rupee wasted.
Another reason could be that two-thirds of the people are poor and don�t pay much in the way of income taxes. Perhaps they don�t see the recent scams as costing them. Contrast this to the West where every allegation of government money misused is widely portrayed as a waste of taxpayers� money and galvanizes opposition. In India, the bulk of the tax base is rich individuals and corporations who, as we should expect, are the ones who�ve been screaming loudest about the recent scandals.
A related explanation may be that there�s been a failure by the opposition parties in articulating the cost to the common man of these various scams. Broad and sweeping condemnations of corruption don�t speak directly to the fact that the money lost could have been used for productive social ends. The talking heads on cable news channels and the pundits in print seem so caught up in the minute details of parliamentary and judicial procedures that they miss the forest for the trees.
The crux of the matter is this: government strategists have presumably deduced that none of these recent scams will be consequential at the polls. What animates the common man is not television debates between Anglicized lawyers who use fancy words but fundamental issues such as food, water and land. Despite all of our economic progress, there remains a fundamental divide between the interests of the urban middle and upper classes and of the poor, whether urban or rural.
Until that changes, the price of onions will always be politically more salient than whatever corruption scandal is making headlines, and will dictate electoral fortunes.
Do you agree? Share your thoughts in the Comments section.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
paskal
07-15 03:07 AM
Thanks. I will look into it further when I get a chance. the number of GC granted in a year is complicated- and for the moment I speak offhand so correct me if needed. Till 2005, the recapture clouded the numbers. After that EB3 benefited from a Schedule A recapture that went almost entirely to EB3, a lot to EB3 Philipenes and a good chunk to EB3 India.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
sc3,
here are the allotments as posted elsewhere.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (EB India allocations)
------------------------------------
EB1 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
Continuing on what i said- till 2005 there was recapture. 2006 reflects what would happen with a vertical spillover for both EB2 and 3 India- about 3,000 GC a year. In 2007, both (esp EB3I) struck pay dirt because everyone became current in July. Under a situation where all categories are current, Gc are distributed exclusively by RD and country quota is thrown out of the window. That is why so many GC were given to EB3 I last year- it makes sense because this is the largest waiting group.
However July 07 is not coming back. If vertical spillover continues, 2006 will become the reality. In that situation the waits for both EB2 and EB3 India will be simply indefinite. Unfortunately for EB3 I, they are indefinite either way- UNLESS we get more GC numbers.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
sc3,
here are the allotments as posted elsewhere.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (EB India allocations)
------------------------------------
EB1 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
Continuing on what i said- till 2005 there was recapture. 2006 reflects what would happen with a vertical spillover for both EB2 and 3 India- about 3,000 GC a year. In 2007, both (esp EB3I) struck pay dirt because everyone became current in July. Under a situation where all categories are current, Gc are distributed exclusively by RD and country quota is thrown out of the window. That is why so many GC were given to EB3 I last year- it makes sense because this is the largest waiting group.
However July 07 is not coming back. If vertical spillover continues, 2006 will become the reality. In that situation the waits for both EB2 and EB3 India will be simply indefinite. Unfortunately for EB3 I, they are indefinite either way- UNLESS we get more GC numbers.
srr_2007
04-07 12:17 AM
My understanding H1 B employers (mostly desi companies) are root cause of this situation by abusing H1 b program, they have made enough money by sucking H1 employees blood, now hey are equally affected it is time for them to share some of it and fund all the efforts to curb these kind of Bills.
Please forward the text of this bill to all your employers and ask them to join hands with IV.
Desi consulting comapanies will not be affected. Consider this, if this bill becomes you can't transfer Visa and stick to the same employer. They can pay whatever they feel like paying (may be $7 per hr) and abuse the way they want. we will continue to extend the Visa and work as slaves thinking that this will get over one day like the Green card mess.
They will earn more with less people and buy all the new model cars and houses everywhere in US.
This is our problem and we have to fight for our good.
Please forward the text of this bill to all your employers and ask them to join hands with IV.
Desi consulting comapanies will not be affected. Consider this, if this bill becomes you can't transfer Visa and stick to the same employer. They can pay whatever they feel like paying (may be $7 per hr) and abuse the way they want. we will continue to extend the Visa and work as slaves thinking that this will get over one day like the Green card mess.
They will earn more with less people and buy all the new model cars and houses everywhere in US.
This is our problem and we have to fight for our good.
Macaca
12-21 09:53 AM
Despite �High Note,� Bush Scolds Congress as Wasteful (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21bush.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1198249370-yXwz0kW/+W6bJYa4zIwlqA) By STEVEN LEE MYERS | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Having beaten back most of the Democrats� legislative initiatives, President Bush chided Congress on Thursday for wasteful spending and announced that his budget director would seek ways to reverse some of the thousands of spending projects attached to a huge spending bill.
Mr. Bush said he and the Congress had ended the year �on a high note,� welcoming a new energy bill, provisions to help people struggling to refinance mortgages, a deferral of the alternative minimum tax that could have affected millions of middle-class taxpayers and an agreement on a $555 billion spending plan that avoided new taxes.
But reflecting the partisan divides that overshadowed those accomplishments, he promptly criticized Congress, citing a sluggish pace of work, refusal to adopt other pieces of legislation important to the White House and its affection for pet spending projects known as earmarks.
�The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year,� Mr. Bush said, returning to a near-constant theme of accusing the Democrats who control Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. �When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way to run this government.�
The flurry of activity virtually ending the first session of the 110th Congress left many issues unresolved, setting the stage for new confrontations when Congress returns after the holidays. They include expanding a federal health care program for children, extending legislation allowing intelligence agencies to monitor communications and approving more spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has so far agreed to $70 billion of the $196 billion the White House has requested in emergency spending for the wars.
Mr. Bush offered no indication that he would be any more compromising with the Democrats.
�Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people�s business,� he said. �The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years.�
For Mr. Bush and the White House, who began the year facing Democratic majorities in Congress, the mood near the end of the session was almost ebullient. After shoring up wavering support for Iraq from Republicans in the summer, the White House managed to keep the party united, defeating Democratic initiatives, even if failing to win Mr. Bush�s own proposals, most prominently changes in immigration laws.
�On taxes, and national security issues generally, Republicans are in lockstep,� the White House director of legislative affairs, Candi Wolff, said in an interview, describing the president�s ability to hold his party. �We could hold the House on most votes at 146, and therefore had the veto-sustaining strength to say that bad legislation can�t get through.�
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the budget director, James A. Nussle, would review 9,800 earmarks in the last spending bill, along with 2,100 more attached to a military spending bill passed earlier.
Mr. Nussle�s spokesman, Sean M. Kevelighan, said the administration could seek to cut or redirect some spending projects approved by Congress.
�There are potential options available,� Mr. Kevelighan said, adding that it was too soon to say what, if any, spending projects could be eliminated or changed.
Frustrated Democrats accused the president of hypocrisy for attacking them after years of increasing spending under a Republican-controlled Congress. They responded by saying the earmarks in current spending bill were far more transparent � and so less wasteful � than those passed by Republican majorities during Mr. Bush�s presidency.
�Nobody said we were going to end them,� Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview in which he boasted of two of his own earmarks for schools and the police in his district. �We said you�d know who put them in.�
WASHINGTON � Having beaten back most of the Democrats� legislative initiatives, President Bush chided Congress on Thursday for wasteful spending and announced that his budget director would seek ways to reverse some of the thousands of spending projects attached to a huge spending bill.
Mr. Bush said he and the Congress had ended the year �on a high note,� welcoming a new energy bill, provisions to help people struggling to refinance mortgages, a deferral of the alternative minimum tax that could have affected millions of middle-class taxpayers and an agreement on a $555 billion spending plan that avoided new taxes.
But reflecting the partisan divides that overshadowed those accomplishments, he promptly criticized Congress, citing a sluggish pace of work, refusal to adopt other pieces of legislation important to the White House and its affection for pet spending projects known as earmarks.
�The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year,� Mr. Bush said, returning to a near-constant theme of accusing the Democrats who control Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. �When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way to run this government.�
The flurry of activity virtually ending the first session of the 110th Congress left many issues unresolved, setting the stage for new confrontations when Congress returns after the holidays. They include expanding a federal health care program for children, extending legislation allowing intelligence agencies to monitor communications and approving more spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has so far agreed to $70 billion of the $196 billion the White House has requested in emergency spending for the wars.
Mr. Bush offered no indication that he would be any more compromising with the Democrats.
�Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people�s business,� he said. �The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years.�
For Mr. Bush and the White House, who began the year facing Democratic majorities in Congress, the mood near the end of the session was almost ebullient. After shoring up wavering support for Iraq from Republicans in the summer, the White House managed to keep the party united, defeating Democratic initiatives, even if failing to win Mr. Bush�s own proposals, most prominently changes in immigration laws.
�On taxes, and national security issues generally, Republicans are in lockstep,� the White House director of legislative affairs, Candi Wolff, said in an interview, describing the president�s ability to hold his party. �We could hold the House on most votes at 146, and therefore had the veto-sustaining strength to say that bad legislation can�t get through.�
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the budget director, James A. Nussle, would review 9,800 earmarks in the last spending bill, along with 2,100 more attached to a military spending bill passed earlier.
Mr. Nussle�s spokesman, Sean M. Kevelighan, said the administration could seek to cut or redirect some spending projects approved by Congress.
�There are potential options available,� Mr. Kevelighan said, adding that it was too soon to say what, if any, spending projects could be eliminated or changed.
Frustrated Democrats accused the president of hypocrisy for attacking them after years of increasing spending under a Republican-controlled Congress. They responded by saying the earmarks in current spending bill were far more transparent � and so less wasteful � than those passed by Republican majorities during Mr. Bush�s presidency.
�Nobody said we were going to end them,� Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview in which he boasted of two of his own earmarks for schools and the police in his district. �We said you�d know who put them in.�
No comments:
Post a Comment