sledge_hammer
12-17 04:19 PM
This will probably be my last video post :)
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l2pisrNORiE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l2pisrNORiE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l2pisrNORiE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l2pisrNORiE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
wallpaper Wallpaper macro, grass desktop
grupak
07-13 01:40 PM
If you were hoping for overflow from EB3ROW, it would still have to pass through the gate of EB2I.
Perhaps the person drafting the letter can explain their rationale on including this in the letter.
First off, we are here to get our GC faster so the effort is commendable.
However, I was also wondering about the old interpretation of the law. After the EB2-ROW numbers fall through to EB3-ROW and presumably make it current, the excess numbers go to EB2 China and India or does it go to EB3 China and India? Glad that someone else also caught this.
Perhaps the person drafting the letter can explain their rationale on including this in the letter.
First off, we are here to get our GC faster so the effort is commendable.
However, I was also wondering about the old interpretation of the law. After the EB2-ROW numbers fall through to EB3-ROW and presumably make it current, the excess numbers go to EB2 China and India or does it go to EB3 China and India? Glad that someone else also caught this.
unitednations
03-24 07:56 PM
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/98/98-60340.CV0.wpd.pdf
Above case is the most frequent cited case by california/vermont service center and appeals office in denying h-1b's.
Essentially; many years ago a nurse staffing agency was filing h-1b's and they were doing it for a specific set of nurses which actually required a degree (most nurses do not require a degree).
The staffing agency was using one of the ways to demonstrate that the job required a degree (which is listed in 8 cfr 214.2h) that it normally hired nurses with degrees. Essentially; they were trying to circumvent h-1b for jobs that normally didn't require degrees.
USCIS and the courts basically stated that if a person is not working at your location then you are considered a "token" employer and that the job requirements of where you are actually working is what needs to be demonstrated to see if the job requires a degree.
Most of h-1b rfe's are trying to determine whether the petitioner is the employer or the agent (they ask for office information, project details and intertwine it to whether you have specailty occupation work at your location) or if the information on your payroll reports; your office size, pictures, etc., show that you are an agent. If they believe that you are an agent then they go the purchase order route.
Now; uscis is totally misapplying this because h-1b is simple; job requreis a degree and person has that degree. In this particular case; nursing agency was trying to create a degree requirement for job that normally doesn't require one.
However; they are applying this standard to all the staffing companies. I would read it and memorize it as this is quoted in every one of the denials.
Above case is the most frequent cited case by california/vermont service center and appeals office in denying h-1b's.
Essentially; many years ago a nurse staffing agency was filing h-1b's and they were doing it for a specific set of nurses which actually required a degree (most nurses do not require a degree).
The staffing agency was using one of the ways to demonstrate that the job required a degree (which is listed in 8 cfr 214.2h) that it normally hired nurses with degrees. Essentially; they were trying to circumvent h-1b for jobs that normally didn't require degrees.
USCIS and the courts basically stated that if a person is not working at your location then you are considered a "token" employer and that the job requirements of where you are actually working is what needs to be demonstrated to see if the job requires a degree.
Most of h-1b rfe's are trying to determine whether the petitioner is the employer or the agent (they ask for office information, project details and intertwine it to whether you have specailty occupation work at your location) or if the information on your payroll reports; your office size, pictures, etc., show that you are an agent. If they believe that you are an agent then they go the purchase order route.
Now; uscis is totally misapplying this because h-1b is simple; job requreis a degree and person has that degree. In this particular case; nursing agency was trying to create a degree requirement for job that normally doesn't require one.
However; they are applying this standard to all the staffing companies. I would read it and memorize it as this is quoted in every one of the denials.
2011 Alternative link : Wallpaper - Macro Photo of the day - 11-11-2007 from Rolf
smisachu
07-14 11:04 PM
We need to concentrate our efforts in achieving relief for everyone in the EB community whether they are EB1/2/3 India/China or ROW. This infighting or dispersed efforts will not yield any results.
We should all strive for the passage of the 3 Lofgren Bills. Please contact your state chapter and help IV channel our efforts where it could be effective.
One observation: I am seeing a lot of individual efforts by many folks. I did not see their participation when we were trying for passage of the 3 bills through letter campaigns and phone campaigns.
Well at least you have woken up now...I will not complain.
Let us focus our efforts and get permanent fix instead of some temporary move by a screwed up system which at the end of each FY bumps up numbers in a one upmanship between DOS and USCIS. We all are caught in the middle and suffer.
My request to all the people re energized, we could really use your help in working on the lobbying efforts. Please contact your state lead as the issue cannot be posted on open IV forms.
We should all strive for the passage of the 3 Lofgren Bills. Please contact your state chapter and help IV channel our efforts where it could be effective.
One observation: I am seeing a lot of individual efforts by many folks. I did not see their participation when we were trying for passage of the 3 bills through letter campaigns and phone campaigns.
Well at least you have woken up now...I will not complain.
Let us focus our efforts and get permanent fix instead of some temporary move by a screwed up system which at the end of each FY bumps up numbers in a one upmanship between DOS and USCIS. We all are caught in the middle and suffer.
My request to all the people re energized, we could really use your help in working on the lobbying efforts. Please contact your state lead as the issue cannot be posted on open IV forms.
more...
bharol
01-06 11:26 PM
Exactly, its about how many people care about the issue. If terrorists kill innocent civilians, first thing they'll say is "Islamic Terrorism". Don't tell me media around the world didn't use this term. Anything and everything blamed on religion and people following the religion.
There is a reason for that. The organizations which claim responsibility for such attacks have names like Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Deccan Mujahiddin... Now I don't have to explain the meanings of their names. Then they say they are doing Jihad!
Why would somebody not call them Islamic terrorists?
Now that does not mean all followers of Islam are Islamic-terrorists.
There is a reason for that. The organizations which claim responsibility for such attacks have names like Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Deccan Mujahiddin... Now I don't have to explain the meanings of their names. Then they say they are doing Jihad!
Why would somebody not call them Islamic terrorists?
Now that does not mean all followers of Islam are Islamic-terrorists.
gchopes
06-23 12:22 PM
If you are worried about 485 getting denied then -
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
more...
smidreb
01-08 12:52 PM
Muslims are cowerds. They never come out in open and attack. They take the means of Jihad etc....
No matter how highly educated they are. Their basic nature remains the same. Every Muslim country u name it has a problem with either their neighbouts. They do not belive in harmony an co existance. surprisingly they also fight among themselves.
Read the link below on how mean they are.
http://www.rense.com/general29/FAHD.HTM
Now this article states the Israel - Palestine conflict clearly.
God bless Israel. God has always been with Israel.
Intrestingly the artical also says...
The Muslim faith envisioned by the Prophet in the Koran and recorded by his contemporaries in the Hadith is a religion that practices tolerance towards all races and religions, stresses the extreme importance of literacy and education, and elevates the status of women to unprecedented levels in many societies. This is the gentle, peaceful Muslim faith practiced everywhere in the world, except in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan
No matter how highly educated they are. Their basic nature remains the same. Every Muslim country u name it has a problem with either their neighbouts. They do not belive in harmony an co existance. surprisingly they also fight among themselves.
Read the link below on how mean they are.
http://www.rense.com/general29/FAHD.HTM
Now this article states the Israel - Palestine conflict clearly.
God bless Israel. God has always been with Israel.
Intrestingly the artical also says...
The Muslim faith envisioned by the Prophet in the Koran and recorded by his contemporaries in the Hadith is a religion that practices tolerance towards all races and religions, stresses the extreme importance of literacy and education, and elevates the status of women to unprecedented levels in many societies. This is the gentle, peaceful Muslim faith practiced everywhere in the world, except in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan
2010 wallpaper macro 2
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
more...
nojoke
04-08 03:38 PM
Read my previous post. You have insulted every member by comparing their intelligence with someone who was so dumb enough to buy something beyond his reach. BTW thanks for taking the pain to google out the fruit picker�s story. This is my last post for you guys. You go ahead and discourage people while I will take some rest in my house.
I am not here to pick a fight. I am showing what is happening in the housing and where it is heading. When I saw all those recomendations of "go ahead and buy" and the rosy pictures you guys are presenting, I wanted to show the other side and what is in store for the future of this economy. NAR has destroyed the economy with slogans like "they are not making any more land". They are liers to the core. Imagine these guys making 300K plus ...and they certainly have incentive to lie and mislead.
I am not here to pick a fight. I am showing what is happening in the housing and where it is heading. When I saw all those recomendations of "go ahead and buy" and the rosy pictures you guys are presenting, I wanted to show the other side and what is in store for the future of this economy. NAR has destroyed the economy with slogans like "they are not making any more land". They are liers to the core. Imagine these guys making 300K plus ...and they certainly have incentive to lie and mislead.
hair Windows Vista wallpapers,
inspectorfox
03-23 03:23 AM
Immigration uncertainties should not be a reason for not buying a house in the US. In my opinion it�s always best to buy a house considering it as a long term investment � You will eventually build equity even though the present US housing market is in doldrums.
I played the housing game differently to minimize the risks associated with my present immigration scenario (I am on 8th year H1B with I140 pending since Oct 2006)...
1) I did not buy an expensive place even though I could easily qualify for $500K mortgage.
2) I put only 3% down payment on my mortgage instead of conventional 20%. It was a difficult decision to make due to PMI but I feel more secure with cash liquidity.
I am an optimistic person but here is my realistic backup strategy if anything falls apart due to immigration (Worse case scenario) -
1) Sell the house and move out of the US (Housing market conditions could be a determining factor)
2) Rent the house (I don't think this should be a problem... LOCATION is the key)
3) Go into Foreclosure (Highly unlikely but you are destined to be screwed anyways)
Does anyone have a better backup plan? Please share here :)
I played the housing game differently to minimize the risks associated with my present immigration scenario (I am on 8th year H1B with I140 pending since Oct 2006)...
1) I did not buy an expensive place even though I could easily qualify for $500K mortgage.
2) I put only 3% down payment on my mortgage instead of conventional 20%. It was a difficult decision to make due to PMI but I feel more secure with cash liquidity.
I am an optimistic person but here is my realistic backup strategy if anything falls apart due to immigration (Worse case scenario) -
1) Sell the house and move out of the US (Housing market conditions could be a determining factor)
2) Rent the house (I don't think this should be a problem... LOCATION is the key)
3) Go into Foreclosure (Highly unlikely but you are destined to be screwed anyways)
Does anyone have a better backup plan? Please share here :)
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-26 10:59 PM
.
hot macro beach sand.jpg
Gravitation
03-25 03:59 PM
Could you explain property tax a little more? i.e. when you own it what % of your house is the tax? Is it a state tax? Is it fed deductible?
Property tax is paid to the town you live in. It pays for the public schools (primary and secondary education). If your town provides trash collection services etc, all that comes from property tax. It's usually different for residential and commercial and industrial properties. Typically, the better the schools in a town, the more is the property tax.
Percentage is determined by the town/city. For the purpose of this tax, town determines what is called "assessed value" of a property. This is done by the town-clerk by simply looking at the specifications of the property (lot size, number of bedrooms, living space, etc). This assessed value can sometimes vary wildly from the market-price. The assessed values are usually adjusted to match the town/city budget. it's not even intended to be anywhere near the market-price.
Just for an example, my house is worth $540,000 (market price), the tax is $6000/year.
Yes. property tax is fed deductible. I save ~$1000/month in fed taxes. Most of the mortgage loan payment is interest in the beginning and that's also tax deductible. My mortgage+property tax+insurance is about $2400. I used to pay $1500 in rent. For me, the only real financial implication of buying a house has been in the form of: New Furniture, increased heating bill and lawn-care. In lieu of that it has four times as much living space, a acre+plus flat yard for my son to play in. On the flip side, it's far out in the suburb. BTW, I put 25% down, otherwise my mortgage payment would have been higher.
Buying a house is not everybody's cup of tea. but it can work very well for some, depending on requirements, taste and future plans.
Property tax is paid to the town you live in. It pays for the public schools (primary and secondary education). If your town provides trash collection services etc, all that comes from property tax. It's usually different for residential and commercial and industrial properties. Typically, the better the schools in a town, the more is the property tax.
Percentage is determined by the town/city. For the purpose of this tax, town determines what is called "assessed value" of a property. This is done by the town-clerk by simply looking at the specifications of the property (lot size, number of bedrooms, living space, etc). This assessed value can sometimes vary wildly from the market-price. The assessed values are usually adjusted to match the town/city budget. it's not even intended to be anywhere near the market-price.
Just for an example, my house is worth $540,000 (market price), the tax is $6000/year.
Yes. property tax is fed deductible. I save ~$1000/month in fed taxes. Most of the mortgage loan payment is interest in the beginning and that's also tax deductible. My mortgage+property tax+insurance is about $2400. I used to pay $1500 in rent. For me, the only real financial implication of buying a house has been in the form of: New Furniture, increased heating bill and lawn-care. In lieu of that it has four times as much living space, a acre+plus flat yard for my son to play in. On the flip side, it's far out in the suburb. BTW, I put 25% down, otherwise my mortgage payment would have been higher.
Buying a house is not everybody's cup of tea. but it can work very well for some, depending on requirements, taste and future plans.
more...
house 82 jpg wallpapers (macro)
satishku_2000
05-16 06:04 PM
It is very simple -- the 'consulting on the bench' business is ILLEGAL. You can have any opinion on it you wan't, but the bottom line is it is against the law. If you can't meet the legal requirements, you shouldn't be here in the first place.
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
Title explains it all ... its not illegal to work parttime on H1b...If some employer does not pay on bench , employee can always goto DOL...
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
Title explains it all ... its not illegal to work parttime on H1b...If some employer does not pay on bench , employee can always goto DOL...
tattoo wallpaper macro pc widescreen
cinqsit
03-24 05:59 PM
Thanks UnitedNations for this discussion.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
more...
pictures Kiwi ackground - macro of
Macaca
05-02 05:32 PM
America is bleeding competitiveness (http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/28/brain-drain-or-brain-circulation-america-is-bleeding-competitiveness/) By Vivek Wadhwa | Entrepreneur Corner
With anti-immigrant sentiment building across the nation, and clouds of nativism swirling around Washington, D.C., skilled immigrants are voting with their feet. They are returning home to countries like India and China. It�s not just the people we are denying visas to who are leaving; even U.S. permanent residents and naturalized citizens are going to where they think the grass is greener. As a result, India and China are experiencing an entrepreneurship boom. And they are learning to innovate just as Silicon Valley does.
Some call this a �brain drain� others say it is �brain circulation.� It is without doubt, good for these countries and it is good for the world. But this is America�s loss: innovation that would otherwise be happening here is going abroad. Without realizing it, we are exporting our prosperity and strengthening our competitors.
There are no hard data available on how many skilled immigrants have already left the U.S. My estimate is that 150,000 have returned to India and China, each, over the past two decades. The trend has accelerated dramatically over the past five years; tens of thousands are now returning home every year. Most authorities agree with these estimates. For example, the Chinese Ministry of Education estimates that the number of overseas Chinese who returned to China in 2009 having received a foreign education reached 108,000: a sharp increase of 56.2% over the previous year. In 2010, this number reached an all-time high of 134,800 (a significant proportion studied in the U.S.).
Why is this important? Because, as research conducted by my team at Duke, UC-Berkeley, Harvard, and New York University has shown, 52.4% of all startups in Silicon Valley, from 1995 to 2005, were founded by immigrants. With all these immigrants leaving, and the next generation of foreign-born entrepreneurs trapped in �immigration limbo,� we won�t have as many immigrant founded startups in the future. The xenophobes who are lobbying against skilled immigration will cheer; but there won�t be more jobs for Americans; just less startups in the U.S. and more abroad. The U.S. pie will be smaller.
My team researched the backgrounds of immigrant founders, and the U.S. immigration backlog. We learned that the majority came to the U.S. as students; 74% held graduate or post graduate degrees, of which 75% were in science, engineering, technology, or mathematics. On average, immigrants started their ventures 13 years after entering the U.S.
During the last twenty years, we admitted record numbers of international students and highly educated foreign workers on temporary visas. But we never expanded the number of permanent resident visas that allow them to stay permanently. The result is that we have a backlog of more than one million skilled workers�doctors, scientists, researchers, and engineers, who are trapped in immigration limbo. They are working for the same companies and doing the same jobs as when they filed their paperwork for gaining permanent residence; this may have been 10-15 years ago. A foreign student who graduates with a masters or PhD in engineering from Duke or Stanford and joins the queue today will have to wait 10-20 years, perhaps longer, to gain permanent residence. They can�t start companies or progress their careers during the most productive period in their lives. Why would anyone put up with that?
Indeed, a survey we conducted of 1,224 foreign nationals who were studying at U.S. universities in 2009, or who had just graduated, revealed that they believed that the U.S. was no longer the destination of choice for professional careers. Most did not want to stay for very long. Fifty eight percent of Indian, 54% of Chinese, and 40% of European students said that they would stay in the U.S. for at least a few years after graduation if given the chance, but only 6% of Indian, 10% of Chinese, and 15% of European students said they want to stay permanently. The largest group of respondents� 55% of Indian, 40% of Chinese, and 30% of European students�wanted to return home within five years. This is very different than what used to be the norm in previous decades: the vast majority of Indians and Chinese stayed permanently.
Our surveys, in 2008, of 1,203 Indian and Chinese immigrants who had worked in or received their education in the U.S. and returned to their home countries revealed that although restrictive immigration policies had caused some returnees to depart, the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life. The move home also served as a career catalyst. For example, only 10% of the Indian returnees held senior management positions in the U.S., but 44% found jobs at this level in India. Chinese returnees went from 9% in senior management in the U.S. to 36% in China. The vast majority thought that quality of life, professional advancement, and family ties were at least as good at home as in the U.S.
The majority of the people we surveyed said they planned to start a business within five years. When we published our research, many experts said that this is where returnees would face the greatest frustration�that the weak infrastructure in India; authoritarianism in China; and corruption and red tape and lack of funding in both countries would be a severe handicap. In other words, when it came to competition from startups in India and China, the U.S. had nothing to worry about.
So, last September, we initiated a project to learn how the entrepreneurship landscape in India and China compares to the U.S. We wanted to learn why these entrepreneurs returned, what their perceptions of the entrepreneurial climate in their home countries were, what the advantages and disadvantages of working in India and China were over working in the U.S., and what types of ties they maintained to the U.S.
We were really surprised at what we learned. In the next installment, I�ll discuss our findings.
Standing Up for Guest Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/opinion/02mon3.html) New York Times Editorial
With anti-immigrant sentiment building across the nation, and clouds of nativism swirling around Washington, D.C., skilled immigrants are voting with their feet. They are returning home to countries like India and China. It�s not just the people we are denying visas to who are leaving; even U.S. permanent residents and naturalized citizens are going to where they think the grass is greener. As a result, India and China are experiencing an entrepreneurship boom. And they are learning to innovate just as Silicon Valley does.
Some call this a �brain drain� others say it is �brain circulation.� It is without doubt, good for these countries and it is good for the world. But this is America�s loss: innovation that would otherwise be happening here is going abroad. Without realizing it, we are exporting our prosperity and strengthening our competitors.
There are no hard data available on how many skilled immigrants have already left the U.S. My estimate is that 150,000 have returned to India and China, each, over the past two decades. The trend has accelerated dramatically over the past five years; tens of thousands are now returning home every year. Most authorities agree with these estimates. For example, the Chinese Ministry of Education estimates that the number of overseas Chinese who returned to China in 2009 having received a foreign education reached 108,000: a sharp increase of 56.2% over the previous year. In 2010, this number reached an all-time high of 134,800 (a significant proportion studied in the U.S.).
Why is this important? Because, as research conducted by my team at Duke, UC-Berkeley, Harvard, and New York University has shown, 52.4% of all startups in Silicon Valley, from 1995 to 2005, were founded by immigrants. With all these immigrants leaving, and the next generation of foreign-born entrepreneurs trapped in �immigration limbo,� we won�t have as many immigrant founded startups in the future. The xenophobes who are lobbying against skilled immigration will cheer; but there won�t be more jobs for Americans; just less startups in the U.S. and more abroad. The U.S. pie will be smaller.
My team researched the backgrounds of immigrant founders, and the U.S. immigration backlog. We learned that the majority came to the U.S. as students; 74% held graduate or post graduate degrees, of which 75% were in science, engineering, technology, or mathematics. On average, immigrants started their ventures 13 years after entering the U.S.
During the last twenty years, we admitted record numbers of international students and highly educated foreign workers on temporary visas. But we never expanded the number of permanent resident visas that allow them to stay permanently. The result is that we have a backlog of more than one million skilled workers�doctors, scientists, researchers, and engineers, who are trapped in immigration limbo. They are working for the same companies and doing the same jobs as when they filed their paperwork for gaining permanent residence; this may have been 10-15 years ago. A foreign student who graduates with a masters or PhD in engineering from Duke or Stanford and joins the queue today will have to wait 10-20 years, perhaps longer, to gain permanent residence. They can�t start companies or progress their careers during the most productive period in their lives. Why would anyone put up with that?
Indeed, a survey we conducted of 1,224 foreign nationals who were studying at U.S. universities in 2009, or who had just graduated, revealed that they believed that the U.S. was no longer the destination of choice for professional careers. Most did not want to stay for very long. Fifty eight percent of Indian, 54% of Chinese, and 40% of European students said that they would stay in the U.S. for at least a few years after graduation if given the chance, but only 6% of Indian, 10% of Chinese, and 15% of European students said they want to stay permanently. The largest group of respondents� 55% of Indian, 40% of Chinese, and 30% of European students�wanted to return home within five years. This is very different than what used to be the norm in previous decades: the vast majority of Indians and Chinese stayed permanently.
Our surveys, in 2008, of 1,203 Indian and Chinese immigrants who had worked in or received their education in the U.S. and returned to their home countries revealed that although restrictive immigration policies had caused some returnees to depart, the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life. The move home also served as a career catalyst. For example, only 10% of the Indian returnees held senior management positions in the U.S., but 44% found jobs at this level in India. Chinese returnees went from 9% in senior management in the U.S. to 36% in China. The vast majority thought that quality of life, professional advancement, and family ties were at least as good at home as in the U.S.
The majority of the people we surveyed said they planned to start a business within five years. When we published our research, many experts said that this is where returnees would face the greatest frustration�that the weak infrastructure in India; authoritarianism in China; and corruption and red tape and lack of funding in both countries would be a severe handicap. In other words, when it came to competition from startups in India and China, the U.S. had nothing to worry about.
So, last September, we initiated a project to learn how the entrepreneurship landscape in India and China compares to the U.S. We wanted to learn why these entrepreneurs returned, what their perceptions of the entrepreneurial climate in their home countries were, what the advantages and disadvantages of working in India and China were over working in the U.S., and what types of ties they maintained to the U.S.
We were really surprised at what we learned. In the next installment, I�ll discuss our findings.
Standing Up for Guest Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/opinion/02mon3.html) New York Times Editorial
dresses Macro Photographie Fun 2010
gc_check
04-07 07:42 PM
H1B program for sure needs to be reformed, a constructive reform, not the one we see in this bill now. Some of the items in bill would indirectly kill the program than reform it. I'm very concerned, given the current situation; the H1B numbers running out on the opening day itself, this bill might get some consideration and attention. At least if we manage a get a clause that allows people with approved I-140 or labour apply for AOS, even when the EB Visa numbers are not available will help many many members of this group. Atleast you can get an EAD and get out of this H1B mess...
Every one going through this process have a moral responsibility and have to do their part, Even if not part of the core, we need to atleast email, mail or call Senator/Congressmen office when required and contribute what you can to IV to help the folks who put in their precious time and work more or less full time on time, in spite having their own family and full time work.
Every one going through this process have a moral responsibility and have to do their part, Even if not part of the core, we need to atleast email, mail or call Senator/Congressmen office when required and contribute what you can to IV to help the folks who put in their precious time and work more or less full time on time, in spite having their own family and full time work.
more...
makeup The photo below is a wallpaper
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.
girlfriend Fun Macro Photography 2010
Macaca
12-30 07:15 PM
Binayak Sen: India's war on a man of peace
A life term for Binayak Sen under a law used by the British against Gandhi has shocked my country (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/28/binayak-sen-india-british-gandhi) By Kalpana Sharma | The Guardian
More than 150 years ago, the British introduced a law in India designed to check rebellious natives. In 2010 this law has been used by an independent India to check activists who question government policy.
Section 124A of the Indian penal code was introduced in 1870 by the British to deal with sedition. It was later used to convict Mahatma Gandhi. In his statement during the hearing on 23 March 1922, Gandhi said, "The section under which Mr Banker [a colleague in non-violence] and I are charged is one under which mere promotion of disaffection is a crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know that some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section � I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected toward a government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any previous system."
The man convicted under this section in 2010 is, like Gandhi, a man of peace. Dr Binayak Sen, celebrated human rights activist and medical doctor, has worked for more than three decades as a doctor in the tribal-dominated areas of the state of Chhattisgarh in central India, working for people denied many of the basic services that the state should provide, such as health and education.
As a civil rights activist, Sen has been an outspoken critic of the state government and its repressive actions against the armed rebellion launched by the banned Communist party of India (Maoist). The state has introduced special laws to suppress support for the Maoists, raising a militia to fight them. Independent observers concur with Sen on the extent of human rights violations, but in May 2007 he was arrested on charges of working with a banned organisation, based on visiting a well-known Maoist ideologue, Narayan Sanyal, in jail.
Denied bail for two years, Sen was finally allowed out on bail last year. On December 24, a case that on all counts was weak and based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, concluded. Sen was found guilty of sedition and other charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment has provoked widespread condemnation from Indian civil society.
Why this case has shocked people's sensibilities has as much to do with the man himself as the state in which he has chosen to work. Sen worked among the poorest and most deprived people in India, the Adivasis. The Maoists have also established their base in the tribal belt stretching through the heart of India. Their concerns are similar; their strategies diametrically opposite.
But for the Chhattisgarh government, the Maoists are evil and deserve no sympathy or understanding. Because they use violence, the response of the state must be equally violent.
Sen and many others who question India's development policy, which has exacerbated the gap between the poorest and the rich, argue that groups like the Maoists succeed because the state fails to serve the needs of the poor. In an atmosphere where everything is reduced to "You are either for us, or against us", there is no place for people like Sen who are fighting for social justice without violence. Arundhati Roy, who has dared to speak publicly about freedom for Kashmir and has spent time with the Maoists to present their worldview, also narrowly escaped sedition charges earlier this year.
The judgment against Sen also reveals the extent to which paranoia and political bias in a state can affect the justice system. In Chhattisgarh today you would need to be a brave individual to question the state. Even judges in lower courts will not. Sen's supporters are determined to file an appeal and take it to the highest court. But whatever the outcome, the very fact of such a ruling has shocked many. India's judiciary has not remained untouched by the scandals currently being unearthed of corruption in very high places. Yet, by and large, faith in the excruciatingly slow judicial system remains fairly high. Today people ask: if even high-profile people like Sen can be denied justice, what hope is there for some unknown citizen being picked and charged of being a Maoist sympathiser or a terrorist?
A life term for Binayak Sen under a law used by the British against Gandhi has shocked my country (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/28/binayak-sen-india-british-gandhi) By Kalpana Sharma | The Guardian
More than 150 years ago, the British introduced a law in India designed to check rebellious natives. In 2010 this law has been used by an independent India to check activists who question government policy.
Section 124A of the Indian penal code was introduced in 1870 by the British to deal with sedition. It was later used to convict Mahatma Gandhi. In his statement during the hearing on 23 March 1922, Gandhi said, "The section under which Mr Banker [a colleague in non-violence] and I are charged is one under which mere promotion of disaffection is a crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know that some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section � I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected toward a government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any previous system."
The man convicted under this section in 2010 is, like Gandhi, a man of peace. Dr Binayak Sen, celebrated human rights activist and medical doctor, has worked for more than three decades as a doctor in the tribal-dominated areas of the state of Chhattisgarh in central India, working for people denied many of the basic services that the state should provide, such as health and education.
As a civil rights activist, Sen has been an outspoken critic of the state government and its repressive actions against the armed rebellion launched by the banned Communist party of India (Maoist). The state has introduced special laws to suppress support for the Maoists, raising a militia to fight them. Independent observers concur with Sen on the extent of human rights violations, but in May 2007 he was arrested on charges of working with a banned organisation, based on visiting a well-known Maoist ideologue, Narayan Sanyal, in jail.
Denied bail for two years, Sen was finally allowed out on bail last year. On December 24, a case that on all counts was weak and based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, concluded. Sen was found guilty of sedition and other charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment has provoked widespread condemnation from Indian civil society.
Why this case has shocked people's sensibilities has as much to do with the man himself as the state in which he has chosen to work. Sen worked among the poorest and most deprived people in India, the Adivasis. The Maoists have also established their base in the tribal belt stretching through the heart of India. Their concerns are similar; their strategies diametrically opposite.
But for the Chhattisgarh government, the Maoists are evil and deserve no sympathy or understanding. Because they use violence, the response of the state must be equally violent.
Sen and many others who question India's development policy, which has exacerbated the gap between the poorest and the rich, argue that groups like the Maoists succeed because the state fails to serve the needs of the poor. In an atmosphere where everything is reduced to "You are either for us, or against us", there is no place for people like Sen who are fighting for social justice without violence. Arundhati Roy, who has dared to speak publicly about freedom for Kashmir and has spent time with the Maoists to present their worldview, also narrowly escaped sedition charges earlier this year.
The judgment against Sen also reveals the extent to which paranoia and political bias in a state can affect the justice system. In Chhattisgarh today you would need to be a brave individual to question the state. Even judges in lower courts will not. Sen's supporters are determined to file an appeal and take it to the highest court. But whatever the outcome, the very fact of such a ruling has shocked many. India's judiciary has not remained untouched by the scandals currently being unearthed of corruption in very high places. Yet, by and large, faith in the excruciatingly slow judicial system remains fairly high. Today people ask: if even high-profile people like Sen can be denied justice, what hope is there for some unknown citizen being picked and charged of being a Maoist sympathiser or a terrorist?
hairstyles HQ macro wallpaper photograph
pappu
08-11 08:46 AM
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
maybe we can do an official press release showing how dumb these people are. as far as i know all this information can be downloaded directly from the flc datacenter. we need to start writing op eds against people like lou dobbs who keep skewing the debate
great find yabadaba. Thanks. I have sent this link to someone who can do some data analysis in our favor. However we are looking for EB GC data.
do you/anyone know of any data sources for EB greencard applications on USCIS site/someone has already done stat research based on uscis data? We would be able to get independent analysis of that data by experts to our advantage. This analysis can be used by media when they interview us and also can be given to lawmakers to win their favor. you can PM me or post any such information on this forum and I can send it to experts I know.
maybe we can do an official press release showing how dumb these people are. as far as i know all this information can be downloaded directly from the flc datacenter. we need to start writing op eds against people like lou dobbs who keep skewing the debate
great find yabadaba. Thanks. I have sent this link to someone who can do some data analysis in our favor. However we are looking for EB GC data.
do you/anyone know of any data sources for EB greencard applications on USCIS site/someone has already done stat research based on uscis data? We would be able to get independent analysis of that data by experts to our advantage. This analysis can be used by media when they interview us and also can be given to lawmakers to win their favor. you can PM me or post any such information on this forum and I can send it to experts I know.
logiclife
07-09 01:11 AM
Well, we had a good debate on Radio on KPFK today.
I would like to thank Rajiv Khanna, Stuart Anderson, Carl Shusterman, Ashish and Swadha for participating on this show. Also Aman and Ashish for arranging this with Debo.
Today, a caller called the show when Debo opened the phone lines and this guy, named Mike, went on and on about how H1B program is similar to slave trade and H1B workers live like insects by piling up 10 people in a one-bedroom apartment and work 100 hours a week for 30 thousand dollars a year bla bla bla.
Without studying due process, or policy analysis, simply crying "Slave Trade", "H1B stole my job...waaaah...waaah", "H1B replaced me...waaah...waaah", they create good sound bites and play victims.
Really, H1B program and employment based greencard program, that brings professionals in skilled occupation into this country to fill a shortage of skilled workers has been vindicated beyond limit. And they keep beating the same drums. "They steal jobs". "They drive down wages". They make good soundbites. And they make good quotes for Lou Dobbs.
Let me say this to Mike and the likes of Zazona.com
Employers dont just go around spending thousands of dollars on H1B fees and greencard fees to hire a guy with foreign accent if a native citizen was available. And they do not underpay them, because they HAVE to pay prevailing wages based on the wages determined by the Department of labor. If they apply for greencard, then that's because they want him on a permenant basis and there is a another labor certification process for that too, where there are newspaper and other advertisements for the job available to citizens first. Upon not finding a suitable fit, they file for labor certification. And let me remind you all that it takes 2-3 years for department of labor to do that coz they do an exhaustive review of the job offer.
Go Here on this link of Department of labor (http://ows.doleta.gov/foreign/perm.asp)and read the process for yourself. This system is designed to protect the citizens and IT WORKS.
Now in a few cases, if there was fraud, then that doesnt mean that the system does not work and should be abolished. Its like saying that we should abolish driving privileges of everyone just because some drivers drive drunk and kill pedestrians. By that token, we must also ground all commercial air travel because sometimes the planes crash and they kill people.
Another accusation is that H1B employees pay for their own fees sometimes and also for lawyer's fees. And they work like donkeys. Well, not everyone pays for the lawyers. In some rare cases, if the employees hire lawyers, its their own choice, for their own comfort and for their own complicated cases which are many time due to problems of their own making. Why would the employer pay for individuals immigration problems that are not tied to H1B or GC petitions filed by Lawyer? As to working additional hours, its called overtime my dear friend. And they are paid to do that. No one works for free. And no one works for less. If they are paid less than what they think they deserve, then they quit the employer and go to another employer next door who pays them more and treats them fairly.
And ya, another thing. Biggest subscriber of H1B program, especially since the late 90s has be the IT industry. Unemployment in IT industry is less than 2%. If H1B program is really making life worse, I am sure IT industry unemployment would have been more than national average of 5%.
And now, let me mention a few slaves and their slave-masters that I am really proud of...
There are nearly 2000 doctors who are on their path to permenant residency(Green card) in America. They are under Conrad-30 (J1) program. They serve 4 million americans in medically underserved areas. These are rural areas where its hard to find a proper grocery store, let alone a Doctor.
One of my friends works as a Doctor in Yuma, Arizona. The greencard process for him stalls him for years and years to move to a more desirable area even if he has done his due of serving in rural areas for X amount of years. His process would start over again if the area is no longer medically underserved.
And then there are nurses, who also make it to America from all over the world on H1B program. Now, if you've ever been to a Hospital, you would know that its not really the most pleasant job in the world. And there is a severe shortage of nurses in America. Even a 5 year old knows this. So by abolishing H1B program and employment based immigration program, you would get rid of the SLAVE nurses too, who work 12-hour shifts on jobs that American born RNA nurses dont accept.
Such Doctors and nurses are a beacon of hope to 4 million Americans where healthcare is difficult to come by. If such Doctors are slaves, then I am proud of those slaves and their slave masters, and I would love to be either one of them any given day of the week.
-Have a great weekend-
I would like to thank Rajiv Khanna, Stuart Anderson, Carl Shusterman, Ashish and Swadha for participating on this show. Also Aman and Ashish for arranging this with Debo.
Today, a caller called the show when Debo opened the phone lines and this guy, named Mike, went on and on about how H1B program is similar to slave trade and H1B workers live like insects by piling up 10 people in a one-bedroom apartment and work 100 hours a week for 30 thousand dollars a year bla bla bla.
Without studying due process, or policy analysis, simply crying "Slave Trade", "H1B stole my job...waaaah...waaah", "H1B replaced me...waaah...waaah", they create good sound bites and play victims.
Really, H1B program and employment based greencard program, that brings professionals in skilled occupation into this country to fill a shortage of skilled workers has been vindicated beyond limit. And they keep beating the same drums. "They steal jobs". "They drive down wages". They make good soundbites. And they make good quotes for Lou Dobbs.
Let me say this to Mike and the likes of Zazona.com
Employers dont just go around spending thousands of dollars on H1B fees and greencard fees to hire a guy with foreign accent if a native citizen was available. And they do not underpay them, because they HAVE to pay prevailing wages based on the wages determined by the Department of labor. If they apply for greencard, then that's because they want him on a permenant basis and there is a another labor certification process for that too, where there are newspaper and other advertisements for the job available to citizens first. Upon not finding a suitable fit, they file for labor certification. And let me remind you all that it takes 2-3 years for department of labor to do that coz they do an exhaustive review of the job offer.
Go Here on this link of Department of labor (http://ows.doleta.gov/foreign/perm.asp)and read the process for yourself. This system is designed to protect the citizens and IT WORKS.
Now in a few cases, if there was fraud, then that doesnt mean that the system does not work and should be abolished. Its like saying that we should abolish driving privileges of everyone just because some drivers drive drunk and kill pedestrians. By that token, we must also ground all commercial air travel because sometimes the planes crash and they kill people.
Another accusation is that H1B employees pay for their own fees sometimes and also for lawyer's fees. And they work like donkeys. Well, not everyone pays for the lawyers. In some rare cases, if the employees hire lawyers, its their own choice, for their own comfort and for their own complicated cases which are many time due to problems of their own making. Why would the employer pay for individuals immigration problems that are not tied to H1B or GC petitions filed by Lawyer? As to working additional hours, its called overtime my dear friend. And they are paid to do that. No one works for free. And no one works for less. If they are paid less than what they think they deserve, then they quit the employer and go to another employer next door who pays them more and treats them fairly.
And ya, another thing. Biggest subscriber of H1B program, especially since the late 90s has be the IT industry. Unemployment in IT industry is less than 2%. If H1B program is really making life worse, I am sure IT industry unemployment would have been more than national average of 5%.
And now, let me mention a few slaves and their slave-masters that I am really proud of...
There are nearly 2000 doctors who are on their path to permenant residency(Green card) in America. They are under Conrad-30 (J1) program. They serve 4 million americans in medically underserved areas. These are rural areas where its hard to find a proper grocery store, let alone a Doctor.
One of my friends works as a Doctor in Yuma, Arizona. The greencard process for him stalls him for years and years to move to a more desirable area even if he has done his due of serving in rural areas for X amount of years. His process would start over again if the area is no longer medically underserved.
And then there are nurses, who also make it to America from all over the world on H1B program. Now, if you've ever been to a Hospital, you would know that its not really the most pleasant job in the world. And there is a severe shortage of nurses in America. Even a 5 year old knows this. So by abolishing H1B program and employment based immigration program, you would get rid of the SLAVE nurses too, who work 12-hour shifts on jobs that American born RNA nurses dont accept.
Such Doctors and nurses are a beacon of hope to 4 million Americans where healthcare is difficult to come by. If such Doctors are slaves, then I am proud of those slaves and their slave masters, and I would love to be either one of them any given day of the week.
-Have a great weekend-
USDream2Dust
06-06 11:55 PM
Whereas i agree with you that you can live good life anywhere, even with no house and no place to live you can live a good life.
But just because your friend got Grilled, shouldn't prevent you from taking risk. It is like, if somebody got run down by bus while crossing street, you would never cross that street.
That is not a good example. Like I said. everybody takes chances, some win and some don't.
Chances of loosing right now, is very slim, since everything is lost and if you still have a good healthy job, chances are you would have it, and if you have backup like double income, you are running in no probability zone.
After your i485 gets denied, I am assuming you can file MTR and wait for it. More senior members may throw light but I am guessing you would have 2-3 months time to leave the country.
On a complete side note, who gives a damn of overstaying if your GC is denied after 10 years of legal staying in US. Stay another year or so and setlle down stuff before you go home. Even better, stay as illegal in this country and join millions other, and chances are that you would get GC before other IV members :).
The above is not my theory but a very well known attorney in NYC told me and my wife, when my wife was little bit out of status. Strange but true.
But just because your friend got Grilled, shouldn't prevent you from taking risk. It is like, if somebody got run down by bus while crossing street, you would never cross that street.
That is not a good example. Like I said. everybody takes chances, some win and some don't.
Chances of loosing right now, is very slim, since everything is lost and if you still have a good healthy job, chances are you would have it, and if you have backup like double income, you are running in no probability zone.
After your i485 gets denied, I am assuming you can file MTR and wait for it. More senior members may throw light but I am guessing you would have 2-3 months time to leave the country.
On a complete side note, who gives a damn of overstaying if your GC is denied after 10 years of legal staying in US. Stay another year or so and setlle down stuff before you go home. Even better, stay as illegal in this country and join millions other, and chances are that you would get GC before other IV members :).
The above is not my theory but a very well known attorney in NYC told me and my wife, when my wife was little bit out of status. Strange but true.
