tikka
07-04 08:55 AM
Dugg the links, posted to the board. What other action items do we have?
some more items we all can work on
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5989
also mail the reporters listed on this thread
DIGGING is simple we have to encourage more members to DIGG> this will keep our stories as most popular
some more items we all can work on
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5989
also mail the reporters listed on this thread
DIGGING is simple we have to encourage more members to DIGG> this will keep our stories as most popular
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
chanduv23
07-04 08:36 AM
Macaca, pappu and gang - can we compile a funny animation cartoon with a message in flash and upload it on youtube?
I have flash on my laptop, if someone can give me the material, I can compile a slideshow ???? Any thoughts??
I have flash on my laptop, if someone can give me the material, I can compile a slideshow ???? Any thoughts??
dealsnet
09-04 07:55 PM
CHANDUV23 THE TERRORIST:
It is easy to locate him in New York and give his details to FBI to check his links to underworld, VHP terrorists, and all other things. Your wife is doing residency. Right??
Hang on, you will be caught before you got GC and will be deported.
Wow Mr. Chandu.....Procliaming that he is has access to Admin rights and saying that he is not compromising on the security aspect as this is not YSR forum.....
This AH has revealed someones full name publicly where no one knows how to do that...except Admins....
Thats it Guys.......I'm out of this....
If I'm CHANDUV23, I would have retaliated from my posts so far...Looks like "_TrueFacts" is more offended than "CHANDUV23" offcourse we know both are same.....
Hats off Man....
It is easy to locate him in New York and give his details to FBI to check his links to underworld, VHP terrorists, and all other things. Your wife is doing residency. Right??
Hang on, you will be caught before you got GC and will be deported.
Wow Mr. Chandu.....Procliaming that he is has access to Admin rights and saying that he is not compromising on the security aspect as this is not YSR forum.....
This AH has revealed someones full name publicly where no one knows how to do that...except Admins....
Thats it Guys.......I'm out of this....
If I'm CHANDUV23, I would have retaliated from my posts so far...Looks like "_TrueFacts" is more offended than "CHANDUV23" offcourse we know both are same.....
Hats off Man....
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
vamsi_poondla
02-14 12:06 PM
I do not support law suit for two reasons,
1) I do not believe that lawsuit will bring a positive decision that benefits the whole community.
2) I do not know any of those who tells that they support lawsuits, their level of commitment for becoming plaintiffs, commit the $s, time and energy
I dont care if USCIS scrutinizes those plaintiffs applications closely. They can and they should. Those who are in such a good strong GC cases alone can come forward and participate because if it is legal battle, every thing is fair on both parties to use all legal means to weaken other party.
You can stretch a government agency only to certain extent. No one can prove that USCIS intentionally took decisions so that they waste the visas. Just like my client cannot sue me for the bugs I introduced in my code.(in my good developer days). At the most court might ask agency to prove that they improved the process which USCIS can prove easily.
I urge all members to understand the reasons why we should not support lawsuit. It is not a true consumer rights issue. It is a government agency with limited resources, ideas and priorities.
Finally, what is it to the community on the whole - recapture of unused numbers. Then what whoever gets GC will be happy with their life and what about other deserving GC aspirants. As an organization, our objectives are very clear - we are pro-legal immigration, grass-roots organization for GC Reforms. We believe in lobbying. We believe in making the agencies improve the process, work with congress to increase numbers/ remove country caps, believe in the benefits of legal highly skilled immigration. If the idea is to benefit those 20% before 2004/2005 and not the whole community, I think it is selfish.
I believe in IV strength, IV core principles, IV approach and IV leadership maturity. Every scenario is carefully thought, researched and evaluated even before turning down that idea.
Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. IV is the kind of organization which keeps the failure attempts also transparent and keeps the members in loop. It also introspects what went wrong and changes the course in next step. Admin relief is the first and foremost priority for us. next is increased lobbying with lawmakers.
1) I do not believe that lawsuit will bring a positive decision that benefits the whole community.
2) I do not know any of those who tells that they support lawsuits, their level of commitment for becoming plaintiffs, commit the $s, time and energy
I dont care if USCIS scrutinizes those plaintiffs applications closely. They can and they should. Those who are in such a good strong GC cases alone can come forward and participate because if it is legal battle, every thing is fair on both parties to use all legal means to weaken other party.
You can stretch a government agency only to certain extent. No one can prove that USCIS intentionally took decisions so that they waste the visas. Just like my client cannot sue me for the bugs I introduced in my code.(in my good developer days). At the most court might ask agency to prove that they improved the process which USCIS can prove easily.
I urge all members to understand the reasons why we should not support lawsuit. It is not a true consumer rights issue. It is a government agency with limited resources, ideas and priorities.
Finally, what is it to the community on the whole - recapture of unused numbers. Then what whoever gets GC will be happy with their life and what about other deserving GC aspirants. As an organization, our objectives are very clear - we are pro-legal immigration, grass-roots organization for GC Reforms. We believe in lobbying. We believe in making the agencies improve the process, work with congress to increase numbers/ remove country caps, believe in the benefits of legal highly skilled immigration. If the idea is to benefit those 20% before 2004/2005 and not the whole community, I think it is selfish.
I believe in IV strength, IV core principles, IV approach and IV leadership maturity. Every scenario is carefully thought, researched and evaluated even before turning down that idea.
Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. IV is the kind of organization which keeps the failure attempts also transparent and keeps the members in loop. It also introspects what went wrong and changes the course in next step. Admin relief is the first and foremost priority for us. next is increased lobbying with lawmakers.
more...
ufo2002
05-11 02:04 PM
I agree with jnayar here... but everyone keep in mind that no system is perfect. But the US employment-based system has serious flaws... especially in today's more globalised-based economy. The requirement that someone stays in the "same job role / same employer" throughout the green card process probably made sense back in the old days when people usually tend to work their entire lives for one company. Today, that no longer makes sense. Employers everywhere almost have worker turnarounds of 2 years on average. That means given the average GC process is about 6 years, you could be looking at someone potentially changing employers 3 times!
Would anyone like to continue working on the same role/salary for 6 years, given that costs of living increase annually? Of course not.
I know that Australia has a "job-based" PR process, but it doesn't bind you to one specific employer... so at least you do have the freedom to decide what job you would like to take on.
The question of immigration to which country is better would probably yield one and the same answer based on the parameters that appear relevant to most people. However, the comparison of immigration processes and systems is an entirely different question - in theory, an employment based immigration system would be a lot better if it is based on correct assumptions. However, an employmet based system that ties an employee to the same job for the duration of the application process, and which requires that the same application processing be redone every time an employee changes jobs, while curtailing the maximum period of time the employee can work in the country is flawed. If the reasoning behind this is that the employee has to show that he/she is indespensible to that one job (with all the highly specific skills that come attached to the job description) which no US citizen/resident is qualified to do, should statistics not show that the majority of positions for which green cards were applied for and obtained have the same employee continuing in that role long after the said employee gets a green card? I would be very surprised if the numbers show that a significant number of employees stick around for any period longer than a year or so in their current, gc-approved roles (and by that, I mean the exact same role for which the GC was applied for - be it with the same company or elsewhere.). In a dynamic market for labor where "skillability" and "learnability" are much more important than current skills and learning, how important is the applicability of a person's current skills to a job that would anyway keep evolving or even changing altogether, during the 6 years of so that a person is employed in that capacity while waiting for the green card?
Just my $0.02.
Would anyone like to continue working on the same role/salary for 6 years, given that costs of living increase annually? Of course not.
I know that Australia has a "job-based" PR process, but it doesn't bind you to one specific employer... so at least you do have the freedom to decide what job you would like to take on.
The question of immigration to which country is better would probably yield one and the same answer based on the parameters that appear relevant to most people. However, the comparison of immigration processes and systems is an entirely different question - in theory, an employment based immigration system would be a lot better if it is based on correct assumptions. However, an employmet based system that ties an employee to the same job for the duration of the application process, and which requires that the same application processing be redone every time an employee changes jobs, while curtailing the maximum period of time the employee can work in the country is flawed. If the reasoning behind this is that the employee has to show that he/she is indespensible to that one job (with all the highly specific skills that come attached to the job description) which no US citizen/resident is qualified to do, should statistics not show that the majority of positions for which green cards were applied for and obtained have the same employee continuing in that role long after the said employee gets a green card? I would be very surprised if the numbers show that a significant number of employees stick around for any period longer than a year or so in their current, gc-approved roles (and by that, I mean the exact same role for which the GC was applied for - be it with the same company or elsewhere.). In a dynamic market for labor where "skillability" and "learnability" are much more important than current skills and learning, how important is the applicability of a person's current skills to a job that would anyway keep evolving or even changing altogether, during the 6 years of so that a person is employed in that capacity while waiting for the green card?
Just my $0.02.
paskal
12-13 12:02 PM
as always Mark!
There may or may not be constitution grounds to challenge the law, I've thought about this too, however from a pragmatic point of view....
1) The money needed to pay the lawyers would likely be more than for lobbying. Importantly money for legal costs is best to be on hand -- i.e. good cash flow, otherwise you risk missing legal deadlines. It would mean diverting money from lobbying. If we were flush with cash e.g. every member paid just $100 per year this would work.
2) Even among members of congress that are behind us, several have reservations about removing country cap (although they are willing to raise it).
3) EB3 ROW is retrogressed anyway. India EB3 is about May 2001, and ROW EB3 Oct 2002. The effect of only removing country quota would be put EB3 generally at about Oct 2001.
The way to move forward for all is to increase total through put, e.g. raise caps, remove dependents from caps, recapture unused quota, tie caps to multiple of H1B quota. For ROW it would move steadily forward, and India move and then would jump forward every 4th quarter with massive spill over from ROW.
As I said I'm not against the idea in principle, just being pragmatic.
There may or may not be constitution grounds to challenge the law, I've thought about this too, however from a pragmatic point of view....
1) The money needed to pay the lawyers would likely be more than for lobbying. Importantly money for legal costs is best to be on hand -- i.e. good cash flow, otherwise you risk missing legal deadlines. It would mean diverting money from lobbying. If we were flush with cash e.g. every member paid just $100 per year this would work.
2) Even among members of congress that are behind us, several have reservations about removing country cap (although they are willing to raise it).
3) EB3 ROW is retrogressed anyway. India EB3 is about May 2001, and ROW EB3 Oct 2002. The effect of only removing country quota would be put EB3 generally at about Oct 2001.
The way to move forward for all is to increase total through put, e.g. raise caps, remove dependents from caps, recapture unused quota, tie caps to multiple of H1B quota. For ROW it would move steadily forward, and India move and then would jump forward every 4th quarter with massive spill over from ROW.
As I said I'm not against the idea in principle, just being pragmatic.
more...
kalyan
12-13 01:00 PM
Either way, be cautious and thoughtable before you fight against the state
Also, i saw in CNN, for some (who are mexican's also), they served in US military (they are not here legallY) and got the Green Card becoz they shared the nations passion in Iraq.
Think some thing like that here too rather than challenge the state and constitution
If you talk with Caste like in India, may be somewhere down the line, you might ask a state for indians (which is like kashmir for muslims).
Also, i saw in CNN, for some (who are mexican's also), they served in US military (they are not here legallY) and got the Green Card becoz they shared the nations passion in Iraq.
Think some thing like that here too rather than challenge the state and constitution
If you talk with Caste like in India, may be somewhere down the line, you might ask a state for indians (which is like kashmir for muslims).
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
okuzmin
10-05 06:07 AM
Yes... at the time of application the H1B should be valid for at least 1 year.... I got my papers returned to me coz of this. I reapplied once I renewd my H1 for 3 more yrs
It doesn't have to be H1B; you simply had to enter the USA legally (in any status) and stay legally in the country for at least one year. F1, J1, H1, L1, or any other status -- it doesn't matter.
It doesn't have to be H1B; you simply had to enter the USA legally (in any status) and stay legally in the country for at least one year. F1, J1, H1, L1, or any other status -- it doesn't matter.
more...
msp1976
02-13 04:04 PM
This is why I mean USCIS/DOS was lazy. If there is total visas for the year (hypothetical 160,000). then only 40,000 are available by quarter. If there is 50,000 applications in the que then there is retrogression. Remember if there is more demand then what can be approved by quarter then retrogression.
So what this means is that if there is 400,000 approved I-140's but only 300,000 greencards then 7% limit would apply because there are more people in the que then what can be approved by quarter. Therefore, ROW people would still be able to file throughout the year and then whatever is left in the fourth quarter that ROW hasn't used then it would spillover. Therefore, it would still give ROW people to continue filing and taking the visas while the 7% countires have to sit and wait for breadcrumbs until the fourth quarter.
In the first three quarter the 'heavy' countries(India/China) would get numbers until the 7% caps hits and in the fourth quarter they would get the big chunck...
If the law contains a 'continous recapture' provision( anything not used this year get recaptured again immediately for next year...) then it would not be long befor e all categories become current....By the way 'continous recapture' is one of the IV goals...
Pl. Correct me if I am wrong....
Now I have really started to appreciate the IV goals listed on the front page.....
IV core team have gone through all this junk long before we got started and the goals take care of every point raised until now....
So what this means is that if there is 400,000 approved I-140's but only 300,000 greencards then 7% limit would apply because there are more people in the que then what can be approved by quarter. Therefore, ROW people would still be able to file throughout the year and then whatever is left in the fourth quarter that ROW hasn't used then it would spillover. Therefore, it would still give ROW people to continue filing and taking the visas while the 7% countires have to sit and wait for breadcrumbs until the fourth quarter.
In the first three quarter the 'heavy' countries(India/China) would get numbers until the 7% caps hits and in the fourth quarter they would get the big chunck...
If the law contains a 'continous recapture' provision( anything not used this year get recaptured again immediately for next year...) then it would not be long befor e all categories become current....By the way 'continous recapture' is one of the IV goals...
Pl. Correct me if I am wrong....
Now I have really started to appreciate the IV goals listed on the front page.....
IV core team have gone through all this junk long before we got started and the goals take care of every point raised until now....
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
snathan
03-30 01:26 PM
Left parties are the worst no doubt about that. Have you gone through the BJP manifesto, its IT vision document and also have you heard about Friends of BJP forums started by Indian businessmen. Yes, Advani runs his politics on religion and Ram temple. Do you think congress does not use religion? Do you hear the news that in Kerala congress has fielded candidates supported by church? Tomorrow if Sri Sri Ravi Shankar or Ramdev baba do the same thing with BJP, our media will shout from the roof top that this is communalism. Do you know Congress is allied with Muslim League in Kerala?
Snathan, all parties use the dirty tricks. Congress, BJP, Communists. But I will always support the party which builds Ram Temple rather than the party which destroys Ram Setu and even denies the existence of Ram.
Yes...We had them in power for five years. It was a joke. India was Shining and we had to wear sun glass.
I am not supporting the congress party. I am only supporting the MMS. To me, he is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarr better than Mr.Advani or Mayavathi
Snathan, all parties use the dirty tricks. Congress, BJP, Communists. But I will always support the party which builds Ram Temple rather than the party which destroys Ram Setu and even denies the existence of Ram.
Yes...We had them in power for five years. It was a joke. India was Shining and we had to wear sun glass.
I am not supporting the congress party. I am only supporting the MMS. To me, he is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarr better than Mr.Advani or Mayavathi
more...
sledge_hammer
02-16 08:27 AM
Great find!
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
dan19
05-09 02:38 PM
1. Birth certificates: They are asking for the Birth Certificates with the application. I and my wife don't have our birth registered in India. Can we provide birth certificates that the Indian embassy sends for this purpose? For US I-485, we were planning to use Non-availability certificates.
>> Canada Accepts Birth Certificates from the embassy.
2. Experience Letter: Will a notarized letter from colleague work for showing work-exp in India. Please note that I already have over 4 yrs of experience in US after that - for which I will manage to get a work exp letter from my company.
>>4 yrs in US should be sufficient. You can just put those 4 yrs of exp in the work exp. sheet they provide. Just ignore the others, else be prepared to answer any queries about it like paystubs, offer letter etc.
3. Status in US: My H1B is valid until Oct 2009, but I don't have the visa stamped on my passport (last H1B visa stamp expired). Can I send a copy of I-797 to prove my status? Also, my wife's F-1 visa has expired but she has a valid I-20 until Dec 2007. Can I send copy of I-20 for proving her valid status in US?
>>You don't need a passport stamp
* I am providing these answers based on my experience. I got my Canadian PR. But please cross-check.
>> Canada Accepts Birth Certificates from the embassy.
2. Experience Letter: Will a notarized letter from colleague work for showing work-exp in India. Please note that I already have over 4 yrs of experience in US after that - for which I will manage to get a work exp letter from my company.
>>4 yrs in US should be sufficient. You can just put those 4 yrs of exp in the work exp. sheet they provide. Just ignore the others, else be prepared to answer any queries about it like paystubs, offer letter etc.
3. Status in US: My H1B is valid until Oct 2009, but I don't have the visa stamped on my passport (last H1B visa stamp expired). Can I send a copy of I-797 to prove my status? Also, my wife's F-1 visa has expired but she has a valid I-20 until Dec 2007. Can I send copy of I-20 for proving her valid status in US?
>>You don't need a passport stamp
* I am providing these answers based on my experience. I got my Canadian PR. But please cross-check.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
logiclife
02-06 01:57 PM
I dont think that you HAVE TO file I-140 within 60 days after labor is approved.
--logiclife.
--logiclife.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
sodh
11-10 01:55 AM
Just my thoughts its okay for companies to use preapproved labor of the enployees who are no more with them ,but what about employees who have worked with them for many years and when the time comes to file the employees I-140, either the the employee is layed off, or they file I-140 application with important documents missing resulting in RFE, no way of knowing whether your experience letters, your evaluation certificate with the evaluators credentials were ever submitted.(Ganda hai per dhanda hai ye).
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
Lasantha
02-15 03:08 PM
Excellent point brother!
Human nature is what tends to create the monopoly. That's the reason for having laws, we know favorism will always exist but a law would prevent it from going over the limit. The way you want it we'll have whites-only-business, asians-only-business and so on..
When you are tired of this discussion you should ask to stop the ones who started it saying their people are better and brighter than others and hence deserve larger immigration volume, before you ask to stop the people who answer them.
Human nature is what tends to create the monopoly. That's the reason for having laws, we know favorism will always exist but a law would prevent it from going over the limit. The way you want it we'll have whites-only-business, asians-only-business and so on..
When you are tired of this discussion you should ask to stop the ones who started it saying their people are better and brighter than others and hence deserve larger immigration volume, before you ask to stop the people who answer them.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
number30
04-01 05:27 PM
Well said !
He has mistrusted us. I do remember throwing his wiket by giving simple catch on mid-on/off and getting run out others ! When CBI raided his home, they found 3 -4 crore of watches in his jwell box. Wonder how much money he might have made with working top bookies ? He/Sanjay Dutt and other like them know that it might come back anytime so they are getting prepared politically.
Again, MERA BHARAT MAHAAN !
India Should go election reforms first. All these bad politicians are coming because of voters without responsibility are voting. For some 500Rs is like one weeks ration. So no wander if they sell this commodity. So for the voters we should put the qualifications like paying the taxes are having something like 10 acre of Land or certain education requirement. So that Politicians cannot bribe the voters easily. Also that would stop the announcement like free TV free Laptop. Like US during freedom war no representation no tax. In India it should be no tax no vote. That way we can curb pompous politicians.
In Some way need to avoid such nonsense.
He has mistrusted us. I do remember throwing his wiket by giving simple catch on mid-on/off and getting run out others ! When CBI raided his home, they found 3 -4 crore of watches in his jwell box. Wonder how much money he might have made with working top bookies ? He/Sanjay Dutt and other like them know that it might come back anytime so they are getting prepared politically.
Again, MERA BHARAT MAHAAN !
India Should go election reforms first. All these bad politicians are coming because of voters without responsibility are voting. For some 500Rs is like one weeks ration. So no wander if they sell this commodity. So for the voters we should put the qualifications like paying the taxes are having something like 10 acre of Land or certain education requirement. So that Politicians cannot bribe the voters easily. Also that would stop the announcement like free TV free Laptop. Like US during freedom war no representation no tax. In India it should be no tax no vote. That way we can curb pompous politicians.
In Some way need to avoid such nonsense.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
PlainSpeak
01-13 01:40 PM
Let me see if I understand PlainSpeak's language:
1. IV core needs to put a lot of resources to lobby for the DV bill, knowing full well that this bill will go nowhere!
2. Raise a false sense of hope among the EB3 community, again, knowing full well that its going to be dashed - just so that IV gains the trust of EB3 (I am EB3, and they have my trust without your logic!)
3. An exercise to gain trust by misleading!:D
I wonder why IV core did not come up with this brilliant idea ;)
Mr willigetgc to start off with here are a few facts
1. IV core needs to put a lot of resources to lobby for the DV bill
IV Core need not put a lot of resources to lobby for DV bill if they feel it is not worth the time and effort. that is for IV Core to decide and the decision is theirs to make after all they know about advocacy and lobbying
1. knowing full well that this bill will go nowhere!
That is my personal opinion and also the opinion of a whole bunch of people on this forum who do not agree with me but do agrree to teh fact that it has been 4 years since any immigration friendly bill came to be debated in congress. What wil make DV bill any different. This wil also go the same way. I would be surpirsed if it even comes up for debate
2. Raise a false sense of hope among the EB3 community, again, knowing full well that its going to be dashed - just so that IV gains the trust of EB3
My friend willigetgc what do EB3 people have besides hope. If you look at the statistics i will get GC in 19 year sand you with a priority date of May 07 (20 - 25 years). No reason not to hope for something and if IV really believes in what i suggested (I am sure it will go through all possible refinements) that would be a signal of not just hope but also action on part of IV to do something about EB Retrogressed folks. Now i am not saying it will happen and i am also not saying it will. All i am saying is here is a chnace to do something different which is also right because iot is not part of teh IV charter that IV is working to get relief for retrogressed EB
(I am EB3, and they have my trust without your logic!)
And what a great thing it is that you being an EB3 with a priority date of 2007 are working with EB2 hand in hand to get something done. It is great that you have trust with IV. Without trust nothing works. What i say is i have trust in IV i do not have trust that what they advocate is good for EB3. Semantics you may say but please read the lines carefully my friend. I hope you will understand
1. IV core needs to put a lot of resources to lobby for the DV bill, knowing full well that this bill will go nowhere!
2. Raise a false sense of hope among the EB3 community, again, knowing full well that its going to be dashed - just so that IV gains the trust of EB3 (I am EB3, and they have my trust without your logic!)
3. An exercise to gain trust by misleading!:D
I wonder why IV core did not come up with this brilliant idea ;)
Mr willigetgc to start off with here are a few facts
1. IV core needs to put a lot of resources to lobby for the DV bill
IV Core need not put a lot of resources to lobby for DV bill if they feel it is not worth the time and effort. that is for IV Core to decide and the decision is theirs to make after all they know about advocacy and lobbying
1. knowing full well that this bill will go nowhere!
That is my personal opinion and also the opinion of a whole bunch of people on this forum who do not agree with me but do agrree to teh fact that it has been 4 years since any immigration friendly bill came to be debated in congress. What wil make DV bill any different. This wil also go the same way. I would be surpirsed if it even comes up for debate
2. Raise a false sense of hope among the EB3 community, again, knowing full well that its going to be dashed - just so that IV gains the trust of EB3
My friend willigetgc what do EB3 people have besides hope. If you look at the statistics i will get GC in 19 year sand you with a priority date of May 07 (20 - 25 years). No reason not to hope for something and if IV really believes in what i suggested (I am sure it will go through all possible refinements) that would be a signal of not just hope but also action on part of IV to do something about EB Retrogressed folks. Now i am not saying it will happen and i am also not saying it will. All i am saying is here is a chnace to do something different which is also right because iot is not part of teh IV charter that IV is working to get relief for retrogressed EB
(I am EB3, and they have my trust without your logic!)
And what a great thing it is that you being an EB3 with a priority date of 2007 are working with EB2 hand in hand to get something done. It is great that you have trust with IV. Without trust nothing works. What i say is i have trust in IV i do not have trust that what they advocate is good for EB3. Semantics you may say but please read the lines carefully my friend. I hope you will understand
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
dilipcr
06-11 10:08 PM
Dilip,i read your old post from 2003, indeed a roller coaster ride...remember good KARMA, you had tons of it man!!
I am not a strong believer in Karma as Karma is something whose existence is determined based on the aftermath of success we achieve in our trials and tribulations. I hope that you people appreciate my opinion that geniuine people need not worry abt GC timelines. It will happen. I dont believe in the policy of these L1s getting GCs because most of them, if not all, do not fall under the superior skillsets category. In addition, they unabashedly jump the queue in terms of GC, flout rules and end up lowering the wages of the existing people. This was also the case back then in 2001.
Back then there was a misplaced sense of security amongst these people working for these outsourcing companies that lower salaries meant guaranteed job security. Most of them never had the confidence in their own skills to venture out on their own. They preferred the tutelage and security of their firms. Their skillsets were run of the mill and so they continued diluting the IT wages. It is the same scenario repeating today wherein these type of guys are under the L1 visa. An insignificant minority among these may be talented but it is not worth the time spending to identify these cases. In my opinion, there is no need to feel sympathetic towards the people from these companies. I may seem to sound harsh here but if you think through my opinions you would realize that my opinions are in the best interests of preventing wage destruction for those working directly for companies n a H1B.
I am not a strong believer in Karma as Karma is something whose existence is determined based on the aftermath of success we achieve in our trials and tribulations. I hope that you people appreciate my opinion that geniuine people need not worry abt GC timelines. It will happen. I dont believe in the policy of these L1s getting GCs because most of them, if not all, do not fall under the superior skillsets category. In addition, they unabashedly jump the queue in terms of GC, flout rules and end up lowering the wages of the existing people. This was also the case back then in 2001.
Back then there was a misplaced sense of security amongst these people working for these outsourcing companies that lower salaries meant guaranteed job security. Most of them never had the confidence in their own skills to venture out on their own. They preferred the tutelage and security of their firms. Their skillsets were run of the mill and so they continued diluting the IT wages. It is the same scenario repeating today wherein these type of guys are under the L1 visa. An insignificant minority among these may be talented but it is not worth the time spending to identify these cases. In my opinion, there is no need to feel sympathetic towards the people from these companies. I may seem to sound harsh here but if you think through my opinions you would realize that my opinions are in the best interests of preventing wage destruction for those working directly for companies n a H1B.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
we_r_d_world
03-27 05:07 PM
Love to see narendra modi as PM but I know that's far from happening. I would bet on LK for now.
NaMo will certainly CHANGE India for sure in a positive way in all aspects. In my opinion, he has another 10 more years to go before he becomes PM. I have very high hopes for him.
A politically active friend once told me (The quote touched me very much), if NaMo manages to stay alive for another 10-15 years, he will certainly be PM of India and that will be the start of India returning to golden ages.
NaMo will certainly CHANGE India for sure in a positive way in all aspects. In my opinion, he has another 10 more years to go before he becomes PM. I have very high hopes for him.
A politically active friend once told me (The quote touched me very much), if NaMo manages to stay alive for another 10-15 years, he will certainly be PM of India and that will be the start of India returning to golden ages.
immigrant2007
08-20 10:38 PM
I agree
I hope we spend this much time in supporting or PLANNING WHAT WE DO NEXT. I still believe if we all of us make a combine effort we can get our backlog issue resolved
I hope we spend this much time in supporting or PLANNING WHAT WE DO NEXT. I still believe if we all of us make a combine effort we can get our backlog issue resolved
onemoredesi
05-15 08:38 PM
Hello Friends and my fellow GC awaiters..
I have my labor pending for the past 3 yrs (my PD is Aug 2003) and have been waiting for ever. Inspite having a Master's I did filee in EB3 just because I work for a large company which does not allow to file in EB2.
Anyways, I came across a company who said that they have a pre approved labor (late 2002) priority date. Is it wise to go for it or wait for something in EB category to move ahead?. I have at least 1 yr 3 months on H1 and will not have any other options except to stay in the company after 3 months.
Is it worth taking the risk and go with the labor substitution?
The second question/advice I'd like from you is:
If I go back to the same company after 6 months because of some issue with the labor can I still preserve my 2003 PD?
Pls let me know your opinion.
Thx a lot guys.
Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies
1MoreDesi !
I have my labor pending for the past 3 yrs (my PD is Aug 2003) and have been waiting for ever. Inspite having a Master's I did filee in EB3 just because I work for a large company which does not allow to file in EB2.
Anyways, I came across a company who said that they have a pre approved labor (late 2002) priority date. Is it wise to go for it or wait for something in EB category to move ahead?. I have at least 1 yr 3 months on H1 and will not have any other options except to stay in the company after 3 months.
Is it worth taking the risk and go with the labor substitution?
The second question/advice I'd like from you is:
If I go back to the same company after 6 months because of some issue with the labor can I still preserve my 2003 PD?
Pls let me know your opinion.
Thx a lot guys.
Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies
1MoreDesi !
No comments:
Post a Comment