tonyHK12
01-14 10:27 AM
And yes my friend TinyHK12 you might have just lost the support of the one guy on this forum who while not being abusive about my post also did NOT support me. He was rooting for AmitJoye a senior member here and some one with whose idea you agree 100%. Thats called as shooting yourselves in the foot
don't make up your own sorry, sad, soap opera
If you do no agree to a post all of you gang up and start abusing the posters and any unfortunate souls who agree with the posters. Normally that is enough to scare the poster away.
Your first mistake is criticizing IV and its strategy on a open forum. The core listens to only ideas from active volunteers and donors and incorporates their suggestions, not a free loader, day dreamer who thinks he/she is brilliant. What any one else says on forums doesn't make any difference.
You think that by arguing on the forum, you can come up with a better idea.
So in a way you're just throwing eggs at IV. All you talk for the last 2 days is just wasting everyones time.
If you want IV to listen to you, you must have actively worked with them in the last 4 years, gained knowledge about advocacy and their trust and only then can they consider any of your ideas.
You have clearly shown that you know nothing.
This is a message for other members too, if you want core and management to listen to your ideas, be active in your state chapter and many mail groups we have working on intiatives, rather than cursing on forums.
You will then be working on action items that can change the lives of legal immigrants for the better and make a big difference.
don't make up your own sorry, sad, soap opera
If you do no agree to a post all of you gang up and start abusing the posters and any unfortunate souls who agree with the posters. Normally that is enough to scare the poster away.
Your first mistake is criticizing IV and its strategy on a open forum. The core listens to only ideas from active volunteers and donors and incorporates their suggestions, not a free loader, day dreamer who thinks he/she is brilliant. What any one else says on forums doesn't make any difference.
You think that by arguing on the forum, you can come up with a better idea.
So in a way you're just throwing eggs at IV. All you talk for the last 2 days is just wasting everyones time.
If you want IV to listen to you, you must have actively worked with them in the last 4 years, gained knowledge about advocacy and their trust and only then can they consider any of your ideas.
You have clearly shown that you know nothing.
This is a message for other members too, if you want core and management to listen to your ideas, be active in your state chapter and many mail groups we have working on intiatives, rather than cursing on forums.
You will then be working on action items that can change the lives of legal immigrants for the better and make a big difference.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
alisa
02-13 08:05 AM
This is great!!!
All my Indian friends who were fighting with me over the (1 or 2) unused EB-2 visas from ROW, well, you can have them my friends. I ain't getting any of them anyway.
All my Indian friends who were fighting with me over the (1 or 2) unused EB-2 visas from ROW, well, you can have them my friends. I ain't getting any of them anyway.
ita
03-31 09:34 PM
Very nice thinking..high thinking as long as you don't want to start applying this yardstick only on Modi and end it there.If we start applying no criminal background yardstick then no politician from the current brigade will be left(assuming when you say criminal background you mean all kinds of crimes)
In other words you are sitting on 6 th floor and Indian political scenario(to that matter political scenario else where too.e.g U.S) is on ground floor.
Let's start doing our best so we can get the ground floor to meet 6th floor.
Till they two meet let's work on 'every sinner has a future,every saint has a past'
Just so you know Obama was into drugs in teens. Wouldn't it be a loss if we applied your yardstick on him ?
Although you said you are not supporting any one of them since you kind of endorsed MMS in previous posts think about this
which one is evil of the two : a guy accused of committing crime in the past but who got his act together and is giving good performance or a Intelligent guy knowing full well he wouldn't wield any power accepting to be a show piece/wrapper PM and taking billion people on a ride?
I am not defending any party or person. Everybody is equally bad. Let, all the Muslims in Gujarat may start love him, and entire Gujarat may vote for him. That does not matter. My point is that those people who run for high office should not have any criminal background, despite how much qualified or skilled they are. Assume, if you involved in small domestic violence, and if you fail in small background check you will not get GC even if you are a Nobel Prize winner. Think about PM post and its responsibilities.
In other words you are sitting on 6 th floor and Indian political scenario(to that matter political scenario else where too.e.g U.S) is on ground floor.
Let's start doing our best so we can get the ground floor to meet 6th floor.
Till they two meet let's work on 'every sinner has a future,every saint has a past'
Just so you know Obama was into drugs in teens. Wouldn't it be a loss if we applied your yardstick on him ?
Although you said you are not supporting any one of them since you kind of endorsed MMS in previous posts think about this
which one is evil of the two : a guy accused of committing crime in the past but who got his act together and is giving good performance or a Intelligent guy knowing full well he wouldn't wield any power accepting to be a show piece/wrapper PM and taking billion people on a ride?
I am not defending any party or person. Everybody is equally bad. Let, all the Muslims in Gujarat may start love him, and entire Gujarat may vote for him. That does not matter. My point is that those people who run for high office should not have any criminal background, despite how much qualified or skilled they are. Assume, if you involved in small domestic violence, and if you fail in small background check you will not get GC even if you are a Nobel Prize winner. Think about PM post and its responsibilities.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
digmetalq
09-04 03:00 AM
"Jayapaul Reddy Vadicherla" This is to warn you on any personal disturbing mesgs
Guys why are we fighting over something that is not helping us, no Indian politician has helped us in our journey to GC, nor have they taken interest in our welfare. We are on our own in this mess, so let us unite as one, no north south east or west we are one HINDUSTANI.
Guys why are we fighting over something that is not helping us, no Indian politician has helped us in our journey to GC, nor have they taken interest in our welfare. We are on our own in this mess, so let us unite as one, no north south east or west we are one HINDUSTANI.
more...
DallasBlue
07-03 07:52 PM
primetime@abcnews.go.com; 2020@abcnews.go.com thisweek@abcnews.go.com ; nightline@abcnews.go.com ; tmoran@abcnews.go.com ; 60m@cbsnews.com ; arooney@cbsnews.com
just now sent emails to the above, Request you all to do the same to bring their attention.
just now sent emails to the above, Request you all to do the same to bring their attention.
chanduv23
02-13 08:37 AM
IV in past has looked into all options. It is not possible to sue USCIS because the law protects them for what they are doing. they are following the law.
If people think we have a case, please take initiative and lead this - you will know how ready the community is. All those who are talking big here on this thread will run away u will see them running 180 degrees the other side if you ask them to come for the class action.
We are not able to generate enough letters - people tend to be rude when asked to sign letters and fight us finding fault with us.
The only way we can achieve something is if we unite and that has to happen through community building exercises and inculcating a sense for the community in the people.
I am ready to support this initiative if it is feasable - so please do not get me wrong or think that I am pessimist. The ckind of community we are dealing with, things are not that easy that we open a thread on IV and everyone follow it.
How many sent flowers? Close to 300
How many attended rally? - close to 2000
How many sending letters ? - close to 2000
All this after so much of cajoling and motivating. needhelp and gang working tirelessly trying hard to get signatures, standing outside grocery stores, standing in train stations, being so focussed - why can others not see what they are doing? The only way our community is going to succeed is by more people coming forward and complimenting efforts of needhelp and and this must keep increasing.
Is the community ready to stand up and rise in unity? Or just opening threads and discussing anonymously and then burying the threads deep below?
Can we walk the talk?
If people think we have a case, please take initiative and lead this - you will know how ready the community is. All those who are talking big here on this thread will run away u will see them running 180 degrees the other side if you ask them to come for the class action.
We are not able to generate enough letters - people tend to be rude when asked to sign letters and fight us finding fault with us.
The only way we can achieve something is if we unite and that has to happen through community building exercises and inculcating a sense for the community in the people.
I am ready to support this initiative if it is feasable - so please do not get me wrong or think that I am pessimist. The ckind of community we are dealing with, things are not that easy that we open a thread on IV and everyone follow it.
How many sent flowers? Close to 300
How many attended rally? - close to 2000
How many sending letters ? - close to 2000
All this after so much of cajoling and motivating. needhelp and gang working tirelessly trying hard to get signatures, standing outside grocery stores, standing in train stations, being so focussed - why can others not see what they are doing? The only way our community is going to succeed is by more people coming forward and complimenting efforts of needhelp and and this must keep increasing.
Is the community ready to stand up and rise in unity? Or just opening threads and discussing anonymously and then burying the threads deep below?
Can we walk the talk?
more...
freedom_fighter
01-15 04:00 PM
No this rule is not against the H1B. Kindly read the rule. This rule is against body shopper and who do all kind of illegal activities. No pay on bench, 80-20 , no LCA ,no value addition etc etc. Their whole existence was questionable from day one. Why don't they do the same business with GC holder or US citizen ? Because they are not required in food chain of consulting. Period. Check out people from one state of India buy H1b . I will use the word buy. It's like buying air ticket along with visa fees to come to usa. USCIS is nailing there.
Do you think that purchasing H1B visa is Okay as per us rules ? It was never legal. It is not that they made a new law or changed a rule. They just said , we know where was the hole and they put some bricks there. So your logic they will do to EAD and GC is pure speculation. Yes during second world war they arrested people with Japanese connection.
They have not banned H1B . Period. Why I am happy ? Because now there will be direct relation between job and H1B. No illusion of fake job. Second, now only good companies will be their ( Accenture , deloitte ) and they will need H1b consultant. Mark my word, US companies can not live without H1B and they will hire H1b directly and will sponsor them.
These companies will never bill below a low limit. The Indian body shop and their gulam agree for any rate ( yes even10$/hr for tester job ) and kills the market. It will usher a new era ( good ) for H1B. Due to these cheap desi dallas real companies never felt the need for sponsoring H1B. In my own case , the client did not give offer to perm because I was cheaper in contract to them. Finally when I resigned and on last day of my 2 week notice period client offered me to sponsor H1B. I refused as some one else had already filed my H1b and I continued there. I am happy for the beginning of this new body shop free time.
I agree, but its sort of v late. We know, i dont know want to name but majority of the people come from one particular state, and most cases of fraud/body shops are from them. They are all settled since the the Y2K era, even though they never deserved on merit basis.
Do you think that purchasing H1B visa is Okay as per us rules ? It was never legal. It is not that they made a new law or changed a rule. They just said , we know where was the hole and they put some bricks there. So your logic they will do to EAD and GC is pure speculation. Yes during second world war they arrested people with Japanese connection.
They have not banned H1B . Period. Why I am happy ? Because now there will be direct relation between job and H1B. No illusion of fake job. Second, now only good companies will be their ( Accenture , deloitte ) and they will need H1b consultant. Mark my word, US companies can not live without H1B and they will hire H1b directly and will sponsor them.
These companies will never bill below a low limit. The Indian body shop and their gulam agree for any rate ( yes even10$/hr for tester job ) and kills the market. It will usher a new era ( good ) for H1B. Due to these cheap desi dallas real companies never felt the need for sponsoring H1B. In my own case , the client did not give offer to perm because I was cheaper in contract to them. Finally when I resigned and on last day of my 2 week notice period client offered me to sponsor H1B. I refused as some one else had already filed my H1b and I continued there. I am happy for the beginning of this new body shop free time.
I agree, but its sort of v late. We know, i dont know want to name but majority of the people come from one particular state, and most cases of fraud/body shops are from them. They are all settled since the the Y2K era, even though they never deserved on merit basis.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
garybanz
12-14 02:01 PM
Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws
The Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination are:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
The Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination are:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
more...
GCHope2011
01-14 10:10 AM
PlainSpeak has a new sock puppet account called actaccord who has no choice but to support him/her. how many more accounts did gcperm create who don't donate ot participate?
Ok here is the fallacy in your argument. Why do i need mutiple accounts to get you guys to realize what u you are doing is wrong when this one account and this one post is all that takes to get everyone to see the real side of the so called senior members and donaters.
Regarding GC PERM (Rolling my eyes NOT Again) see my previous post and please read it carefully and if you do not get it please read it a couple of time more. i am sure you will get it.
And yes my friend TinyHK12 you might have just lost the support of the one guy on this forum who while not being abusive about my post also did NOT support me. He was rooting for AmitJoye a senior member here and some one with whose idea you agree 100%. Thats called as shooting yourselves in the foot
In cases like PlainSpeak we need a background check for free members posting more than 10 messages a day, not only charge them.
Sure that is a great idea. As i said before (I think i was responding to you post in another thread) a paid subscription for posting messages on this forum is agreat idea and background checks wow that is a new one. How about a criminal background check like they do for jobs in financial sectors. Great idea but please remeber this will have to be a requirement which wil have to be implemented for each and every member of this forum and yes that includes background check on you yourselves my friend TonyHK. And please dont even think about the privacy issues IV will face
I agree this member has been inciting people to start fighting with him/her and into arguments, and playing a emotional manipulative card by pretending to be a woman.
Ok first please get this one fact straight that i am a women but just so that all you abusive senior members and donors will breathe a little easy i will become a man for you. Then you guys will not have any constraints and will not hold back and will not feel bad about abusing a women becasue for your convieneice and so that you can abuse guilt free i hav ebecome a man. Now there is just one thing wrong with this logic
ABUSING ON FORUM IS WRONG WHETHER IT IS AGAINST A MAN OR A WOMEN PERIOD
Sheesh you guys are shooting yourselves in the foot every time you post on this forum
plainspeak is just trying to keep negative threads alive and incite more in-fighting.
If you senior members and donars will step back and think about this for a moment you will realize the truth and the truth is that you guys have accused me of mob mentality but the fact is it is you guys who have a mob mentality.
How let me explain .........
If you do no agree to a post all of you gang up and start abusing the posters and any unfortunate souls who agree with the posters. Normally that is enough to scare the poster away. He/she either decides that this is not worth it and takes an out or is coerced by you so called senior members in such a way that their will is broken and they are just plain scared (YES SCARED !!).
Now coming to my post. There is nothing wrong in what i said. I asked for discussion to an idea. This is just like all the other guys and gals before me to tried the same. The only difference is that i stand by my comment and i do not abuse you guys back because i reply back to every argument of yours (No matter how stupid/illogical/abusive) with valid arguments. Now you guys do not know how to deal with that and the only way to respind is to answer back with strong arm tactics.
But guys the answer is really simple. Answer back with logical arguments and if you do not have any more logical arguments please rethink about the arguments (Do brainstorming and come up with one argument). Do not spend your valuable time working out HOW TO DISCREDIT PLAINSPEAK AND GET HIM (I am a man for you sake) OUT OF THE FORUM. Instead think about a logical argument to my post and convince me. Hey i am here to be convinced, Not my brow beating Not by strong arm tactis and certainly Not by abuses but by Logic.
(Logic in india is called Tarq. So bai log bhuddi or Tarq sa bate karo )
PlainSpeak - instead of spending so much time on responding to everyone's criticism of you, why dont you go ahead and detail out the "how" of "what" you think IV should do.
Maybe there is a gap in the understanding of all the posters here in terms of "how" all what you have said will pan out.
Please be specific around who, when, to whom and using what means can the "what" of your proposition be accomplished. And while you are at it, it will also be useful to lay out how and which of the activities you could personally be of help (by devoting time/ money/ energy/ All/ Some Combination).
For all you know, it might open the eyes of a lot of people here.
Ok here is the fallacy in your argument. Why do i need mutiple accounts to get you guys to realize what u you are doing is wrong when this one account and this one post is all that takes to get everyone to see the real side of the so called senior members and donaters.
Regarding GC PERM (Rolling my eyes NOT Again) see my previous post and please read it carefully and if you do not get it please read it a couple of time more. i am sure you will get it.
And yes my friend TinyHK12 you might have just lost the support of the one guy on this forum who while not being abusive about my post also did NOT support me. He was rooting for AmitJoye a senior member here and some one with whose idea you agree 100%. Thats called as shooting yourselves in the foot
In cases like PlainSpeak we need a background check for free members posting more than 10 messages a day, not only charge them.
Sure that is a great idea. As i said before (I think i was responding to you post in another thread) a paid subscription for posting messages on this forum is agreat idea and background checks wow that is a new one. How about a criminal background check like they do for jobs in financial sectors. Great idea but please remeber this will have to be a requirement which wil have to be implemented for each and every member of this forum and yes that includes background check on you yourselves my friend TonyHK. And please dont even think about the privacy issues IV will face
I agree this member has been inciting people to start fighting with him/her and into arguments, and playing a emotional manipulative card by pretending to be a woman.
Ok first please get this one fact straight that i am a women but just so that all you abusive senior members and donors will breathe a little easy i will become a man for you. Then you guys will not have any constraints and will not hold back and will not feel bad about abusing a women becasue for your convieneice and so that you can abuse guilt free i hav ebecome a man. Now there is just one thing wrong with this logic
ABUSING ON FORUM IS WRONG WHETHER IT IS AGAINST A MAN OR A WOMEN PERIOD
Sheesh you guys are shooting yourselves in the foot every time you post on this forum
plainspeak is just trying to keep negative threads alive and incite more in-fighting.
If you senior members and donars will step back and think about this for a moment you will realize the truth and the truth is that you guys have accused me of mob mentality but the fact is it is you guys who have a mob mentality.
How let me explain .........
If you do no agree to a post all of you gang up and start abusing the posters and any unfortunate souls who agree with the posters. Normally that is enough to scare the poster away. He/she either decides that this is not worth it and takes an out or is coerced by you so called senior members in such a way that their will is broken and they are just plain scared (YES SCARED !!).
Now coming to my post. There is nothing wrong in what i said. I asked for discussion to an idea. This is just like all the other guys and gals before me to tried the same. The only difference is that i stand by my comment and i do not abuse you guys back because i reply back to every argument of yours (No matter how stupid/illogical/abusive) with valid arguments. Now you guys do not know how to deal with that and the only way to respind is to answer back with strong arm tactics.
But guys the answer is really simple. Answer back with logical arguments and if you do not have any more logical arguments please rethink about the arguments (Do brainstorming and come up with one argument). Do not spend your valuable time working out HOW TO DISCREDIT PLAINSPEAK AND GET HIM (I am a man for you sake) OUT OF THE FORUM. Instead think about a logical argument to my post and convince me. Hey i am here to be convinced, Not my brow beating Not by strong arm tactis and certainly Not by abuses but by Logic.
(Logic in india is called Tarq. So bai log bhuddi or Tarq sa bate karo )
PlainSpeak - instead of spending so much time on responding to everyone's criticism of you, why dont you go ahead and detail out the "how" of "what" you think IV should do.
Maybe there is a gap in the understanding of all the posters here in terms of "how" all what you have said will pan out.
Please be specific around who, when, to whom and using what means can the "what" of your proposition be accomplished. And while you are at it, it will also be useful to lay out how and which of the activities you could personally be of help (by devoting time/ money/ energy/ All/ Some Combination).
For all you know, it might open the eyes of a lot of people here.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
innervoice
09-24 12:47 PM
I'm on H1 and I also bought a house 2 year ago, though would like to sell my house , it's a great idea as I can sell my house easily if that strategy worked out. Then I can buy a house again in order get a GC quickly. ;)
Great Idea! I do support.
Great Idea! I do support.
more...
acecupid
08-20 08:31 PM
Heat on SRK was because of scanner on Bollywood shows - US - World - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/world/us/Heat-on-SRK-was-because-of-scanner-on-Bollywood-shows/articleshow/4916759.cms)
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
kukitron
09-29 11:54 AM
Hi there,
I also used automatic revalidation about 3 months back.. Dont worry, The immigration officer there knows all the rules. FYI, I went by car from rainbow bridge. While comming back officer just asked me normal questions such as "Where are you from ? " and "When are you flying back to Houston ?". Thats about it..
--HumHongeKamiyab
I just arrived yesterday from Canada with an expired Visa and my extension notice from INS.
Unfortunatly, they officer was an ignorant pig without any knowledge about immigration. Luckily, I was sent to an office where officers were nice and well trained,
I recommend you to print out the actual law so you can have more arguments and arrive earlier to the airport if you are flying
I also used automatic revalidation about 3 months back.. Dont worry, The immigration officer there knows all the rules. FYI, I went by car from rainbow bridge. While comming back officer just asked me normal questions such as "Where are you from ? " and "When are you flying back to Houston ?". Thats about it..
--HumHongeKamiyab
I just arrived yesterday from Canada with an expired Visa and my extension notice from INS.
Unfortunatly, they officer was an ignorant pig without any knowledge about immigration. Luckily, I was sent to an office where officers were nice and well trained,
I recommend you to print out the actual law so you can have more arguments and arrive earlier to the airport if you are flying
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
cableman
05-10 06:27 PM
Does anyone have a comment on this ?
I got this from: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/imm-law.html#act12
Permanent residents
Persons who have been admitted to Canada as permanent residents have the right to come to the country and remain here, provided they have not lost that status or it has not been established that they have engaged in activities, such as criminal acts, that would otherwise subject them to removal.
Conditions may be imposed for a certain period on some permanent residents, such as entrepreneurs. A permanent resident must live in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. In some situations, time spent outside Canada may count. All permanent residents must comply with this residency requirement or risk losing their status.
According to the website, you will lose your status if you go to Canada in the 5th year because you won't be able to attain the requirement of living in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. Actually, after you pass your 3rd year, you will be in risk for the permanent status.
I got this from: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/imm-law.html#act12
Permanent residents
Persons who have been admitted to Canada as permanent residents have the right to come to the country and remain here, provided they have not lost that status or it has not been established that they have engaged in activities, such as criminal acts, that would otherwise subject them to removal.
Conditions may be imposed for a certain period on some permanent residents, such as entrepreneurs. A permanent resident must live in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. In some situations, time spent outside Canada may count. All permanent residents must comply with this residency requirement or risk losing their status.
According to the website, you will lose your status if you go to Canada in the 5th year because you won't be able to attain the requirement of living in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within a five-year period. Actually, after you pass your 3rd year, you will be in risk for the permanent status.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
immi_seeker
09-17 04:09 PM
October bulletin has already moved to Jan22'2005. From other tracking sites there are not too many Feb'2005 applications. But we have plenty of March 2005 applicants. Once it crosses March it will zoom ahead to end of 2005.
But it could be September 2010 by the time it comes to March,2005.
Any idea what would be the number of pre-perm applications arnd mar-2005. Will it be like in 10K numbers . Any idea?
But it could be September 2010 by the time it comes to March,2005.
Any idea what would be the number of pre-perm applications arnd mar-2005. Will it be like in 10K numbers . Any idea?
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
BharatPremi
05-17 10:27 AM
Your statement completely misleads and not true.
SL Tamils are not immigrants but are the native sons of northern part of the present geographical area known as Sri Lanka. Before Europeans came more than 500 years ago to Sri Lanka, SL Tamils had their own kingdom but when finally British left, they left the Tamils land and fate with the hands of the narrow minded majority, who started to discriminate ingenious Tamils left and right.
Of course as you said, there are Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka who were taken by British to work in the tea plantations. Besides, Muslims in Sri Lanka also speak Tamil but they don�t usually associate racially with Tamils and maintain separate identity
Current issue in Sri Lanka is between native Tamils and Sinhalese. Indian Tamils factor very minimal in this conflict.
Please do some research before putting things in historical puerspective.
You contradict yourself while saying "Your statement completely misleads and not true". I am saying this because you preferred not to comment on "Sinhala" part of my statement. So, should I safely assume that you are in agreement with that part? I agree with you on one thing as in my statement I did not enlist all probable historic migrations of tamils in past for an example during Chola invasion or at the time of Prince Vijaya.. But still I would say there is a truth in my statement as tamils were never been in such a huge proportion of sri lankan population in history. Today's almost 18-20% of tamil population in Sri lanka is due to the large scale migration happened during British time period. And yes if stick to the truthful definition of "native" neither Sinhala nor tamils are the natives of Sri Lanka as both ethenic groups have been migrated from India to Sri Lanka at some point of time in history. And we can not change the definition of "native" in every century. Can we?:)
SL Tamils are not immigrants but are the native sons of northern part of the present geographical area known as Sri Lanka. Before Europeans came more than 500 years ago to Sri Lanka, SL Tamils had their own kingdom but when finally British left, they left the Tamils land and fate with the hands of the narrow minded majority, who started to discriminate ingenious Tamils left and right.
Of course as you said, there are Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka who were taken by British to work in the tea plantations. Besides, Muslims in Sri Lanka also speak Tamil but they don�t usually associate racially with Tamils and maintain separate identity
Current issue in Sri Lanka is between native Tamils and Sinhalese. Indian Tamils factor very minimal in this conflict.
Please do some research before putting things in historical puerspective.
You contradict yourself while saying "Your statement completely misleads and not true". I am saying this because you preferred not to comment on "Sinhala" part of my statement. So, should I safely assume that you are in agreement with that part? I agree with you on one thing as in my statement I did not enlist all probable historic migrations of tamils in past for an example during Chola invasion or at the time of Prince Vijaya.. But still I would say there is a truth in my statement as tamils were never been in such a huge proportion of sri lankan population in history. Today's almost 18-20% of tamil population in Sri lanka is due to the large scale migration happened during British time period. And yes if stick to the truthful definition of "native" neither Sinhala nor tamils are the natives of Sri Lanka as both ethenic groups have been migrated from India to Sri Lanka at some point of time in history. And we can not change the definition of "native" in every century. Can we?:)
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
mundada
07-10 11:32 AM
Best Wishes!
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
akred
09-23 12:11 PM
Current homeowners who are waiting for their GC MUST also be exempted from cap. This clause has to be there. Without having any gurantee of getting GC these folks have invested their savings in buying home even when the prices were high, WHY because they had real intent of making US their permanent home. So these people should too be exempted from EB cap.
A better justification would be that doing so will avoid bringing new supply on the market from people moving to their native countries.
FWIW, the home I bought in 2001 is paid off, but I wouldn't mind buying another one if this comes through.
A better justification would be that doing so will avoid bringing new supply on the market from people moving to their native countries.
FWIW, the home I bought in 2001 is paid off, but I wouldn't mind buying another one if this comes through.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
snathan
08-15 10:35 PM
I gave you green...
You know america will care and care only US interests...and will defend its actions. We all have suffered inexplicable delays in NC/BC (donot know if they honor 180 day rule) but who cares for immigrants....
...peace...
Thats how every country should behave...unfortunately its not happening in our beloved mother country. The terrorist asking for mutton briyani...in other countries he would be made as briyani by this time...:D
You know america will care and care only US interests...and will defend its actions. We all have suffered inexplicable delays in NC/BC (donot know if they honor 180 day rule) but who cares for immigrants....
...peace...
Thats how every country should behave...unfortunately its not happening in our beloved mother country. The terrorist asking for mutton briyani...in other countries he would be made as briyani by this time...:D
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
ajaypr
06-24 01:24 PM
Why should we punish people who play by the rules? Charles Oppenheim, Guru of the Visa Office in the State Department, has confirmed what we warned employment-based (EB) immigrants about in our June 2009 newsletter. Not only are EB-3 numbers unavailable for the rest of the fiscal year and EB-2 numbers for persons born in China and India oversubscribed, but the situation is going to get worse, much worse. Mr. Oppenheim states that the EB-1, EB-4 and EB-5 categories are all experiencing greatly increased demand, so much so that the EB-4 category (religious workers and special immigrants) may retrogress this...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/grim-outlook-for-eb-visa-numbers.html)
This is what I received from a immigration lawyer ......
LATEST GRIM VISA BULLETIN PROJECTIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED GREEN CARDS ILLUSTRATE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
There are few things that clearly demonstrate the overarching need for immigration reform than the most recent information provided by the U.S. Department of State's (DOS) Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin provides information on the availability of immigrant visa numbers, which dictates when foreign nationals may apply for green cards under various preference categories. The July installment of the Visa Bulletin shows complete unavailability for the vast majority of employment-based cases. Moreover, DOS projections show that demand for higher-preference green card categories could reach record levels, which would lead to backlogs in these categories where green card numbers were traditionally available in the past.
The Visa Bulletin establishes "cut-off" dates based on the demand for green cards versus the amount actually available under immigration law to each specific employment-based (and family-based) category per country for each fiscal year. As it assesses green card demand in relation to availability, the DOS may move these cut-off dates forward or back, or not at all. When the DOS believes that all immigrant visa numbers in a particular category will be exhausted (or allocated) by the end of a particular fiscal year (i.e., September 30th), it will indicate an "unavailability" of numbers (marked as "U") in the Visa Bulletin. The law prevents any single country from overuse of immigrant visa numbers during a particular fiscal year. As a result, foreign nationals born in countries from which there is significant immigration to the U.S. will typically have a separate "cut-off" date (and longer waiting times for an available green card number) in the Visa Bulletin.
An individual's priority date or "place in line" for a visa number under the employment-based categories is the date on which his or her employer files a labor certification or immigrant visa petition with the government. Individuals assigned priority dates that are earlier than the relevant preference category cut-off date noted in the Visa Bulletin are eligible to move to the last step in the employment-based green card process - either processing of an adjustment of status application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), or processing of an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad. When the category is "unavailable," individuals cannot file for adjustment of status or receive an immigrant visa.
In the most recent Visa Bulletin, immigrant visa numbers continue to be unavailable for all third preference (EB-3) employment-based cases. Third preference cases comprise the majority of pending employment-based green card cases, as they include positions requiring at minimum either a bachelor's degree or two years of work experience.
The July Visa Bulletin indicates that the first, second and fourth and fifth preference employment categories remain current for July. However, since demand in the second. preference category for individuals from China and India exceeds the per-country limitations, these two countries have second-preference cut-off dates of January 2000.
Overall, the July Visa Bulletin continues a substantial decrease in green card availability over the government's 2009 fiscal year. Admittedly, the retrogression, or backward movement of the cut-off dates, has been more common for employment-based green card numbers in recent years. Yet the complete exhaustion of EB-3 numbers and the sharp decline in India and China's EB-2 numbers are staggering reversals given the slow yet steady improvement in these cut-off dates during the present fiscal year.
DOS has projected that, as a result of significant filings in the EB-4 and EB-5 categories, there will be fewer numbers to supplement the EB-1 and EB-2 categories. In previous years, thousands of unused EB-4 and EB-5 numbers "spilled over" into other preference categories. However, greater-than-anticipated EB-4 and EB-5 usage, as well as greater demand in the EB-1 category itself, will create an even greater dearth of available "spill over" immigrant visa numbers in the EB-2 category.
In addition, the DOS has indicated that the EB-1 category for individuals born in India or China may backlog or retrogress later this summer, and may do so again in the coming fiscal year. Predictably, prognostications for the EB-2 category for India and China are also quite grim - in the next month or two, the EB-2 category could become unavailable. In particular, USCIS has indicated that it has about 25,000 EB-2 India cases and "significant numbers" of cases for Chinese nationals that have been reviewed and are simply awaiting visa number availability. This category has a typical fiscal-year limit of 2,800, plus any remaining numbers from the EB-1, EB-4 and EB-5 categories.
With respect to the EB-3 category, the DOS has stated that the worldwide, China and Mexico quotas for the EB-3 category will become available again with the start of the new fiscal year in October 2009, with a projected cut-off date of March 1, 2003 for each. However, the EB-3 India quota may have a November 1, 2001 cut-off date.
The federal quotas limiting employment-based green card numbers have remained unchanged since 1990, nearly two decades ago. Since that time, the United States has undergone unprecedented expansion, technological development, and cultural diversification, in large part through immigration. During this progress, skilled immigrants have continued one of our country's oldest and proudest traditions - the search for better lives for their families, and the desire to contribute to and to participate in our free society. Still, these quotas remain stagnant, potentially stifling the future of our nation's ability in the 21st century to prosper as an economic competitor in our world, to build a broad-based infrastructure in our localities, and to live together as families in our homes.
A quarter-century prior to 1990, major revisions to the immigration quotas sparked a historic influx of individuals to our nation of immigrants. In 1965, this broad-based increase in immigration levels across all preference categories allowed some of the world's most talented individuals to come to our shores and share their knowledge as academics, increase our economic fortunes as innovators and entrepreneurs, build vibrant communities as leaders and organizers, and inspire with their tales of strife and triumph as refugees. For many ethnicities and nationalities, the "post-65" generation was the real beginning of their stories in America.
Faced with a major financial downturn and an increasingly competitive global economy, our country cannot choose the path of closed borders and restricted immigration. At this very moment, historically restrictive nations are expanding their immigration policies and attracting valuable immigrants otherwise bound for our shores.
Absent relief provided by potential legislation, there will be substantial backlogs for nationals of India and China in all categories for many years. Careful and strategic planning for employers and foreign nationals entering into or engaged in the immigrant visa process will be necessary while we continue to advocate zealously for reform to address these antiquated quotas.
These green card backlogs illustrate the need for comprehensive immigration reform. In particular, a long-overdue increase in employment-based green card availability would play a major role in making future generations of individuals feel welcome to come to our nation of immigrants and in spurring sorely needed innovation and prosperity.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/grim-outlook-for-eb-visa-numbers.html)
This is what I received from a immigration lawyer ......
LATEST GRIM VISA BULLETIN PROJECTIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED GREEN CARDS ILLUSTRATE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
There are few things that clearly demonstrate the overarching need for immigration reform than the most recent information provided by the U.S. Department of State's (DOS) Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin provides information on the availability of immigrant visa numbers, which dictates when foreign nationals may apply for green cards under various preference categories. The July installment of the Visa Bulletin shows complete unavailability for the vast majority of employment-based cases. Moreover, DOS projections show that demand for higher-preference green card categories could reach record levels, which would lead to backlogs in these categories where green card numbers were traditionally available in the past.
The Visa Bulletin establishes "cut-off" dates based on the demand for green cards versus the amount actually available under immigration law to each specific employment-based (and family-based) category per country for each fiscal year. As it assesses green card demand in relation to availability, the DOS may move these cut-off dates forward or back, or not at all. When the DOS believes that all immigrant visa numbers in a particular category will be exhausted (or allocated) by the end of a particular fiscal year (i.e., September 30th), it will indicate an "unavailability" of numbers (marked as "U") in the Visa Bulletin. The law prevents any single country from overuse of immigrant visa numbers during a particular fiscal year. As a result, foreign nationals born in countries from which there is significant immigration to the U.S. will typically have a separate "cut-off" date (and longer waiting times for an available green card number) in the Visa Bulletin.
An individual's priority date or "place in line" for a visa number under the employment-based categories is the date on which his or her employer files a labor certification or immigrant visa petition with the government. Individuals assigned priority dates that are earlier than the relevant preference category cut-off date noted in the Visa Bulletin are eligible to move to the last step in the employment-based green card process - either processing of an adjustment of status application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), or processing of an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad. When the category is "unavailable," individuals cannot file for adjustment of status or receive an immigrant visa.
In the most recent Visa Bulletin, immigrant visa numbers continue to be unavailable for all third preference (EB-3) employment-based cases. Third preference cases comprise the majority of pending employment-based green card cases, as they include positions requiring at minimum either a bachelor's degree or two years of work experience.
The July Visa Bulletin indicates that the first, second and fourth and fifth preference employment categories remain current for July. However, since demand in the second. preference category for individuals from China and India exceeds the per-country limitations, these two countries have second-preference cut-off dates of January 2000.
Overall, the July Visa Bulletin continues a substantial decrease in green card availability over the government's 2009 fiscal year. Admittedly, the retrogression, or backward movement of the cut-off dates, has been more common for employment-based green card numbers in recent years. Yet the complete exhaustion of EB-3 numbers and the sharp decline in India and China's EB-2 numbers are staggering reversals given the slow yet steady improvement in these cut-off dates during the present fiscal year.
DOS has projected that, as a result of significant filings in the EB-4 and EB-5 categories, there will be fewer numbers to supplement the EB-1 and EB-2 categories. In previous years, thousands of unused EB-4 and EB-5 numbers "spilled over" into other preference categories. However, greater-than-anticipated EB-4 and EB-5 usage, as well as greater demand in the EB-1 category itself, will create an even greater dearth of available "spill over" immigrant visa numbers in the EB-2 category.
In addition, the DOS has indicated that the EB-1 category for individuals born in India or China may backlog or retrogress later this summer, and may do so again in the coming fiscal year. Predictably, prognostications for the EB-2 category for India and China are also quite grim - in the next month or two, the EB-2 category could become unavailable. In particular, USCIS has indicated that it has about 25,000 EB-2 India cases and "significant numbers" of cases for Chinese nationals that have been reviewed and are simply awaiting visa number availability. This category has a typical fiscal-year limit of 2,800, plus any remaining numbers from the EB-1, EB-4 and EB-5 categories.
With respect to the EB-3 category, the DOS has stated that the worldwide, China and Mexico quotas for the EB-3 category will become available again with the start of the new fiscal year in October 2009, with a projected cut-off date of March 1, 2003 for each. However, the EB-3 India quota may have a November 1, 2001 cut-off date.
The federal quotas limiting employment-based green card numbers have remained unchanged since 1990, nearly two decades ago. Since that time, the United States has undergone unprecedented expansion, technological development, and cultural diversification, in large part through immigration. During this progress, skilled immigrants have continued one of our country's oldest and proudest traditions - the search for better lives for their families, and the desire to contribute to and to participate in our free society. Still, these quotas remain stagnant, potentially stifling the future of our nation's ability in the 21st century to prosper as an economic competitor in our world, to build a broad-based infrastructure in our localities, and to live together as families in our homes.
A quarter-century prior to 1990, major revisions to the immigration quotas sparked a historic influx of individuals to our nation of immigrants. In 1965, this broad-based increase in immigration levels across all preference categories allowed some of the world's most talented individuals to come to our shores and share their knowledge as academics, increase our economic fortunes as innovators and entrepreneurs, build vibrant communities as leaders and organizers, and inspire with their tales of strife and triumph as refugees. For many ethnicities and nationalities, the "post-65" generation was the real beginning of their stories in America.
Faced with a major financial downturn and an increasingly competitive global economy, our country cannot choose the path of closed borders and restricted immigration. At this very moment, historically restrictive nations are expanding their immigration policies and attracting valuable immigrants otherwise bound for our shores.
Absent relief provided by potential legislation, there will be substantial backlogs for nationals of India and China in all categories for many years. Careful and strategic planning for employers and foreign nationals entering into or engaged in the immigrant visa process will be necessary while we continue to advocate zealously for reform to address these antiquated quotas.
These green card backlogs illustrate the need for comprehensive immigration reform. In particular, a long-overdue increase in employment-based green card availability would play a major role in making future generations of individuals feel welcome to come to our nation of immigrants and in spurring sorely needed innovation and prosperity.
chantu
03-31 07:56 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/02-riot-hit-Muslim-ex-cop-joins-BJP/articleshow/4342140.cms
tikka
07-04 07:39 AM
http://indiapost.com/article/immigration/597/
On July 1, 2007, the Visa Numbers in the Employment-based Second and Third Preferences will become current. The USCIS Service Centers in Nebraska and Texas will be deluged with Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) applications.
An update on AILA Infonet expresses concern that the USCIS may start rejecting I-485 filings before July 31, 2007 even though, historically, applicants have had the benefit of the whole month to file before the State Department announces retrogression for the following month.
In fact, the cut-off date for the "Other Worker" was October 1, 2001 in the June 2007 Visa Bulletin. Yet, the USCIS began rejecting I-485 filings under the Other Worker category with priority dates of October 1, 2001 or earlier when the agency was informed by the State Department that the visa allocation for this category had been exhausted on June 5, 2007.
AILA believes that the rejection policy is contrary to the regulation at 8 CFR �245.1(g) (1), and has urged USCIS to reverse its policy, which it has refused to do so. In any event, June 2007 is almost over, and even if USCIS reverses its erroneous policy later in July, would it still be able to accept I-485 applications that were due in June 2007? In July 2007, the Other Worker category becomes Unavailable.
Regarding the "Current" dates in July 2007, the AILA Update indicates that USCIS has approximately 40,000 visas remaining in all employment-based categories for 2007, and that USCIS already has far more than that number of I-485 applications in the backlog queue ready for approval. Remember that there was a similar deluge of I-485 filings prior to the earlier retrogression of October 1, 2005.
If these have already been pre-approved, they will exhaust the supply of existing immigrant visas and there is a likelihood that USCIS may start rejecting I-485 filings before the month of July is over. AILA has not yet predicted the exact date in July when this will happen. Despite the rush to file, one cannot underscore the importance of filing complete I-485 applications. If the I-485 does not contain the medical examination report, it will get rejected as the document is considered "initial evidence."
The same applies to birth certificates, marriage certificates and other essential documents. It is also important to file with the correct filing fees for the I-485 ($325 + $70 for the biometrics fee). The accompanying I-765 application for temporary employment authorization is $180 and the I-131 application for Advance Parole is $180. It is also important to make full and truthful disclosure of any unauthorized unemployment on the Form G-325A.
Some may have worked after their F-1 OPT had expired and others may have been involved in self-employment home businesses. The fact that an applicant has worked without authorization for short periods of time should not render him or her ineligible to file for Adjustment of Status. Section 245(k) of the Immigration and Nationality Act protects status violations up to 180 days from the last lawful admission into the United States.
For example, if an applicant worked without authorization between October and December 2006, and then left the United States and entered on January 1, 2007 in H-1B status, so long as this individual has not violated status for more than 180 days since January 1, 2007, he or she would still be eligible to file the I-485. For those with longer periods of status violations, Section 245(i) may also render them eligible to file an I-485.
To be eligible under Section 245(i), the applicant must have been the beneficiary of a labor certification or employment or family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-140 or Form I-130) prior to April 30, 2001. If the filing was between January 15, 1998 and April 30, 2001, he or she must also establish physical presence in the US as of December 21, 2000.
If one is filing under Section 245(i), the I-485 must be accompanied by Supplement A and an additional penalty fee of $1,000. Finally, it is also important to disclose criminal arrests and convictions, however minor. Of course, those who have a criminal record must seek the advice of an attorney prior to filing the I-485.
While not all minor arrests or convictions will lead to inadmissibility, some may and it is important to find out whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver. If one is filing an I-140 concurrently with the I-485, note that the USCIS announced on June 28, 2007 that it was temporarily suspending premium processing for 30 days from July 2, 2007 due to the heavy rush in applications.
Cyrus D. Mehta
On July 1, 2007, the Visa Numbers in the Employment-based Second and Third Preferences will become current. The USCIS Service Centers in Nebraska and Texas will be deluged with Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) applications.
An update on AILA Infonet expresses concern that the USCIS may start rejecting I-485 filings before July 31, 2007 even though, historically, applicants have had the benefit of the whole month to file before the State Department announces retrogression for the following month.
In fact, the cut-off date for the "Other Worker" was October 1, 2001 in the June 2007 Visa Bulletin. Yet, the USCIS began rejecting I-485 filings under the Other Worker category with priority dates of October 1, 2001 or earlier when the agency was informed by the State Department that the visa allocation for this category had been exhausted on June 5, 2007.
AILA believes that the rejection policy is contrary to the regulation at 8 CFR �245.1(g) (1), and has urged USCIS to reverse its policy, which it has refused to do so. In any event, June 2007 is almost over, and even if USCIS reverses its erroneous policy later in July, would it still be able to accept I-485 applications that were due in June 2007? In July 2007, the Other Worker category becomes Unavailable.
Regarding the "Current" dates in July 2007, the AILA Update indicates that USCIS has approximately 40,000 visas remaining in all employment-based categories for 2007, and that USCIS already has far more than that number of I-485 applications in the backlog queue ready for approval. Remember that there was a similar deluge of I-485 filings prior to the earlier retrogression of October 1, 2005.
If these have already been pre-approved, they will exhaust the supply of existing immigrant visas and there is a likelihood that USCIS may start rejecting I-485 filings before the month of July is over. AILA has not yet predicted the exact date in July when this will happen. Despite the rush to file, one cannot underscore the importance of filing complete I-485 applications. If the I-485 does not contain the medical examination report, it will get rejected as the document is considered "initial evidence."
The same applies to birth certificates, marriage certificates and other essential documents. It is also important to file with the correct filing fees for the I-485 ($325 + $70 for the biometrics fee). The accompanying I-765 application for temporary employment authorization is $180 and the I-131 application for Advance Parole is $180. It is also important to make full and truthful disclosure of any unauthorized unemployment on the Form G-325A.
Some may have worked after their F-1 OPT had expired and others may have been involved in self-employment home businesses. The fact that an applicant has worked without authorization for short periods of time should not render him or her ineligible to file for Adjustment of Status. Section 245(k) of the Immigration and Nationality Act protects status violations up to 180 days from the last lawful admission into the United States.
For example, if an applicant worked without authorization between October and December 2006, and then left the United States and entered on January 1, 2007 in H-1B status, so long as this individual has not violated status for more than 180 days since January 1, 2007, he or she would still be eligible to file the I-485. For those with longer periods of status violations, Section 245(i) may also render them eligible to file an I-485.
To be eligible under Section 245(i), the applicant must have been the beneficiary of a labor certification or employment or family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-140 or Form I-130) prior to April 30, 2001. If the filing was between January 15, 1998 and April 30, 2001, he or she must also establish physical presence in the US as of December 21, 2000.
If one is filing under Section 245(i), the I-485 must be accompanied by Supplement A and an additional penalty fee of $1,000. Finally, it is also important to disclose criminal arrests and convictions, however minor. Of course, those who have a criminal record must seek the advice of an attorney prior to filing the I-485.
While not all minor arrests or convictions will lead to inadmissibility, some may and it is important to find out whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver. If one is filing an I-140 concurrently with the I-485, note that the USCIS announced on June 28, 2007 that it was temporarily suspending premium processing for 30 days from July 2, 2007 due to the heavy rush in applications.
Cyrus D. Mehta
No comments:
Post a Comment