pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
wallpaper Related Posts: back neck
Hermione
10-01 09:24 AM
Well, if they wasted more than 1,000 visas, I am going to write and call everyone on my list. Don't tell me they can't manage to appove 140K visas a year, or they are overloaded with work - USCIS approves a total of more than 1M green cards a year, so let's not pretend they do not have the capacity.
bkam
04-26 11:44 AM
When you apply for permanent residency in a developed country, you have to cover certain criteria and then you get the approval prior to entering the country. This criteria may include job invitation from a local company (New Zealand recent approach) etc but the point is that the relationship between the potential immigrant and the country-recipient are clear.
The situation in the US is different - you come here to work temporarily only and you must state that you will return back upon expiration on your visa. On the other hand, there is an option to apply for permanent residence but it is not guaranteed - it is only a possibility.
OK, I can live whit this approach. But when applying for a GC and would like to BE ABLE TO GET REPLY IN A RESONABLE PERIOD OF TIME - 2-3 months, not 3-4 years ! If approved, I would like to BE ABLE TO GET MY GC IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME - 6-12 months, not another 5-6 years ! Than I can take a decision what to do and where to go.
I also do not mind to pay for SS and Medicare. That is OK as long as I get these money back if I do not became a permanent resident/citizen of this country. And I should get it back with an average market interest rate for those 6-7 years. Same if I would have invested them in bonds or so.
That is a fair approach ! Why I have to state that I am coming here temporarily only and then be forced to pay for SS and Medicare ? Because I am retarded and do not understand what is going on ?!
The situation in the US is different - you come here to work temporarily only and you must state that you will return back upon expiration on your visa. On the other hand, there is an option to apply for permanent residence but it is not guaranteed - it is only a possibility.
OK, I can live whit this approach. But when applying for a GC and would like to BE ABLE TO GET REPLY IN A RESONABLE PERIOD OF TIME - 2-3 months, not 3-4 years ! If approved, I would like to BE ABLE TO GET MY GC IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME - 6-12 months, not another 5-6 years ! Than I can take a decision what to do and where to go.
I also do not mind to pay for SS and Medicare. That is OK as long as I get these money back if I do not became a permanent resident/citizen of this country. And I should get it back with an average market interest rate for those 6-7 years. Same if I would have invested them in bonds or so.
That is a fair approach ! Why I have to state that I am coming here temporarily only and then be forced to pay for SS and Medicare ? Because I am retarded and do not understand what is going on ?!
2011 wallpaper ladies neck design
9years
12-03 08:03 AM
Congrats 9Years. What a big relief ...... Right !!! Finally DONE. I am waiting for the same moment .....
Hi Vayumahesh,
Thank you and you will get it soon. Best of luck.
Hi Vayumahesh,
Thank you and you will get it soon. Best of luck.
more...
Libra
09-14 02:32 PM
bump
miguy
12-18 02:02 PM
I have been wanting to post this for the last few days and was happy to read this thread.........can we do something like an Immigrant's Boycott Day or something where we should do a mass boycott all over the country.....we need to coordinate this across the entire country and do a gandhi style protest.....but we need atleast maybe 1000 people per city to do it.....I am not sure how difficult it is to get that many people.....but that seems to be the only way to create an Impact.......WE HAVE TO MAKE OUR EMPLOYERS FEEL THE IMPACT OF NOT HAVING US FOREIGN WORKERS.....THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS EXPLOITATION........its like when all the mexican farmers stopped working on the strawberry farms.....there were no strawberries in the market....I am in the Detroit, MI area.... we need to come up with a list of big cities where we can get 1000 people per city.
Hit them where it hurts the most.
Hit them where it hurts the most.
more...
sumagiri
04-30 04:57 PM
look here at
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=71f24d6c52c99110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications. "
It means they have used 90K Visa out of 140-150K ..it means 50K visa left for next 5 month..not sure how much visa dates wlll be moved.
For calculation purpose, I think they used up 140,000 * 85% * 65% = 77,000 (approx). Look at page 3 (last but one para) "According to DOS, applicants for adjustment of status currently account for 25% of annual family-based visa allocations and 85% of annual employment-based visa allocations."
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=71f24d6c52c99110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications. "
It means they have used 90K Visa out of 140-150K ..it means 50K visa left for next 5 month..not sure how much visa dates wlll be moved.
For calculation purpose, I think they used up 140,000 * 85% * 65% = 77,000 (approx). Look at page 3 (last but one para) "According to DOS, applicants for adjustment of status currently account for 25% of annual family-based visa allocations and 85% of annual employment-based visa allocations."
2010 neck designs for saree blouses. neck designs for saree blouses
desi485
11-25 07:21 PM
Sir,
Thank you for your response. Is it normal to see an LUD on the 140 (approved) as well, when the G-28N is sent in?
Thanks,
Sharing what I read on IV - some members reported their 140 status reverted to 'pending' along with a recent LUD when their ex-employer revoked already approved 140. In your case, status is not changed. Keep an eye on status. Hopefully, CIS will not do another wrongful denial, crossing my fingers. Best Luck bro!
Thank you for your response. Is it normal to see an LUD on the 140 (approved) as well, when the G-28N is sent in?
Thanks,
Sharing what I read on IV - some members reported their 140 status reverted to 'pending' along with a recent LUD when their ex-employer revoked already approved 140. In your case, status is not changed. Keep an eye on status. Hopefully, CIS will not do another wrongful denial, crossing my fingers. Best Luck bro!
more...
sam2006
09-12 11:12 PM
Done
Changed the Equation
Changed the Equation
hair neck designs for saree blouses
kkcal2002
07-18 12:04 AM
Live in Sanbernardino County but work in LA County(Pasadena). count me IN.
more...
nivasch
03-02 03:20 PM
I found this Information:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6600ap_wst_governors_immigration.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6600ap_wst_governors_immigration.html
hot Saree Blouse Neck Designs
desi485
11-20 06:01 PM
Hmmmm - but all these top Attorneys are professional - I mean - why would they tell you just the opposite for getting money through h1b transfers - I don't believe it.
I did seek paid professional councel from Attorneys and thats how I was convinced that h1b is safer.
Like say - of a h1b extension/transfer is successful - then the h1b is typically delinked from what is happening to 485 or 140. As per my understanding a pending 140 or a pending labor is the basis for h1b extensions and they are not coupled whereas an EAD is coupled with 485 and the denial hits the EAD straight because of its direct association.
Folks correct me if I am wrong
Don't get me wrong. There are so many good lawyers. I have talked to few of them who are reputed and didn't even charge me for my first call. However what I said above is based on this (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18642&postcount=9). If you read entire thread, you would know what I meant.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5293
"As those of you who have read this forum for many years know, I believe that it is a waste of time and money for someone to try to maintain H status while waiting for AOS approval. I know that the conventional Internet wisdom is that this is the thing to do. The problem is, proponents of that position cannot offer any legal or rational authority for their position.
There are a number of law firms that represent employers only. They do work on behalf of their clients' employees, but they don't directly represent those employees. The employees are third party beneficiaries of their work.
While it costs an employer more to keep an employee in H status, many companies undertake this cost because they know that if an employee wishes to move elsewhere, it is more difficult to do so if the new employer has to file an H transfer petition, rather than simply recording the new employee's EAD number.
If an attorney represents the company, and not the employee, then the attorney has no duty to the employee and does not have to advise the employee as to what is best for him or her. Also, attorney's make far more money filing H petitions as opposed to filing EAD/AP applications."
I did seek paid professional councel from Attorneys and thats how I was convinced that h1b is safer.
Like say - of a h1b extension/transfer is successful - then the h1b is typically delinked from what is happening to 485 or 140. As per my understanding a pending 140 or a pending labor is the basis for h1b extensions and they are not coupled whereas an EAD is coupled with 485 and the denial hits the EAD straight because of its direct association.
Folks correct me if I am wrong
Don't get me wrong. There are so many good lawyers. I have talked to few of them who are reputed and didn't even charge me for my first call. However what I said above is based on this (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18642&postcount=9). If you read entire thread, you would know what I meant.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5293
"As those of you who have read this forum for many years know, I believe that it is a waste of time and money for someone to try to maintain H status while waiting for AOS approval. I know that the conventional Internet wisdom is that this is the thing to do. The problem is, proponents of that position cannot offer any legal or rational authority for their position.
There are a number of law firms that represent employers only. They do work on behalf of their clients' employees, but they don't directly represent those employees. The employees are third party beneficiaries of their work.
While it costs an employer more to keep an employee in H status, many companies undertake this cost because they know that if an employee wishes to move elsewhere, it is more difficult to do so if the new employer has to file an H transfer petition, rather than simply recording the new employee's EAD number.
If an attorney represents the company, and not the employee, then the attorney has no duty to the employee and does not have to advise the employee as to what is best for him or her. Also, attorney's make far more money filing H petitions as opposed to filing EAD/AP applications."
more...
house neck designs for saree
MDix
03-03 11:09 AM
Not much movement.
EB2-I : 15 August 2004
Eb3-I : Either U or 15 Jan 2002.
Thank's
MDix
EB2-I : 15 August 2004
Eb3-I : Either U or 15 Jan 2002.
Thank's
MDix
tattoo neck designs for saree blouses. Saree Blouse Neck Designs 2011
shantak
07-18 01:33 PM
I made the next payment of $100.00
Google Order:613953234192030
Total Contributions: $350.00
I will contribute more periodically
Thanks
Google Order:613953234192030
Total Contributions: $350.00
I will contribute more periodically
Thanks
more...
pictures Black Halter Neck Saree Blouse
.jpg "neck designs for saree")
gc_on_demand
04-30 03:34 PM
If this is the case right now.. Think about House and Senate.. Will they pass it easily ? Eventually they will say next year we dont have time for immi stuff this year..
dresses Neck Designs Saree Blouse,neck
peacock
09-14 11:18 AM
Sent more email's this morning about the rally to a no of news papers,radio and TV stations including
Washington Business Journal
Washington City Paper
Washington Post
Washington Times
Washington Diplomat
C-SPAN Radio
National Public Radio (NPR)
Radio America
Voice of America
Public Interest
Fox News Channel
Financial Times
New York Observer
New York Times Syndicate
NBC News
Financial Times
Air America Radio
Newsweek ON AIR
RadioNation
Beaver Press
Blue Mountain Panorama
Box Elder News Journal
Deseret Morning News
Eagle Sentinel
FCCTV
WRC (NBC-4)
WTTG (Fox 5)
WUSA (CBS-9)
Pacifica Radio
ADA News & Notes
American Enterprise
American Prospect
American Spectator
Accuracy In Media
Also sent email's to this list of reporters
mcuban@hd.net,
wnelson@hd.net,
nytnews@nytimes.com,
news-tips@nytimes.com,
washington@nytimes.com,
AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com,
satya.prakash@hindustantimes.com,
pmagazine@hindustantimes.com,
aditya.ghosh@hindustantimes.com,
Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com,
Drmanny@foxnews.com,
Beltway@foxnews.com,
Myword@foxnews.com,
Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com,
Bigstoryweekend@foxnews.com,
Bullsandbears@foxnews.com,
Cash@foxnews.com,
Cavuto@foxnews.com,
Fncimag@foxnews.com,
Forbes@foxnews.com,
Friends@foxnews.com,
Feedback@foxnews.com,
Jamie@foxnews.com,
Fncspecials@foxnews.com,
FNS@foxnews.com,
Newswatch@foxnews.com,
Foxreport@foxnews.com,
Atlarge@foxnews.com,
Heartland@foxnews.com,
JER@foxnews.com,
Lineup@foxnews.com,
Ontherecord@foxnews.com,
Oreilly@foxnews.com,
Redeye@foxnews.com,
Special@foxnews.com,
Studiob@foxnews.com,
Hemmer@foxnews.com,
Colonelscorner@foxnews.com,
Housecall@foxnews.com,
Hannity@foxnews.com,
Colmes@foxnews.com,
Letters@newsweek.com,
Customer.Care@newsweek.com,
viewerservices@msnbc.com,
today@nbc.com,
wt@nbc.com,
mtp@nbc.com,
abc.news.magazines@abc.com,
[email]letters@msnbc.com
__________
Washington Business Journal
Washington City Paper
Washington Post
Washington Times
Washington Diplomat
C-SPAN Radio
National Public Radio (NPR)
Radio America
Voice of America
Public Interest
Fox News Channel
Financial Times
New York Observer
New York Times Syndicate
NBC News
Financial Times
Air America Radio
Newsweek ON AIR
RadioNation
Beaver Press
Blue Mountain Panorama
Box Elder News Journal
Deseret Morning News
Eagle Sentinel
FCCTV
WRC (NBC-4)
WTTG (Fox 5)
WUSA (CBS-9)
Pacifica Radio
ADA News & Notes
American Enterprise
American Prospect
American Spectator
Accuracy In Media
Also sent email's to this list of reporters
mcuban@hd.net,
wnelson@hd.net,
nytnews@nytimes.com,
news-tips@nytimes.com,
washington@nytimes.com,
AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com,
satya.prakash@hindustantimes.com,
pmagazine@hindustantimes.com,
aditya.ghosh@hindustantimes.com,
Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com,
Drmanny@foxnews.com,
Beltway@foxnews.com,
Myword@foxnews.com,
Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com,
Bigstoryweekend@foxnews.com,
Bullsandbears@foxnews.com,
Cash@foxnews.com,
Cavuto@foxnews.com,
Fncimag@foxnews.com,
Forbes@foxnews.com,
Friends@foxnews.com,
Feedback@foxnews.com,
Jamie@foxnews.com,
Fncspecials@foxnews.com,
FNS@foxnews.com,
Newswatch@foxnews.com,
Foxreport@foxnews.com,
Atlarge@foxnews.com,
Heartland@foxnews.com,
JER@foxnews.com,
Lineup@foxnews.com,
Ontherecord@foxnews.com,
Oreilly@foxnews.com,
Redeye@foxnews.com,
Special@foxnews.com,
Studiob@foxnews.com,
Hemmer@foxnews.com,
Colonelscorner@foxnews.com,
Housecall@foxnews.com,
Hannity@foxnews.com,
Colmes@foxnews.com,
Letters@newsweek.com,
Customer.Care@newsweek.com,
viewerservices@msnbc.com,
today@nbc.com,
wt@nbc.com,
mtp@nbc.com,
abc.news.magazines@abc.com,
[email]letters@msnbc.com
__________
more...
makeup neck designs for saree
anilsal
07-16 12:37 PM
have posted info on this campaign to their chapters. I am sure this high-five campaign will be a great success. Keep the fire on.
girlfriend Saree+louse+neck+designs
nyte_crawler
04-26 12:38 PM
You have been calling H1 PD will be fair for some time now. I dont think it is. It is infact unfair for those who have the intention to immigrate. (Sorry to say this time and time again)
Let's say,
Person A comes in Jan 1999, works for several companies and infact jumped around for higher pay and better prospects and just before the 6th year is finished he/she applies for the GC process.
Person B comes in Dec 1999, works for a year and decides to settle and applies for the GC process and get stuck with the employer.
According to your argument, who gets a better deal, Person A. But is it fair. Absolutely Not. Lets say you walk into a grocery store, but want to stand infront of the queue in the check-out line just because you entered in the grocery store first does not makes sense. :)
Learning01, thanks for hijacking the topic to SS and Medicare. :)
I dont expect the wait to be any less longer .. But I would surely welcome priority date being based on H1 start date as it would be more fair method
Let's say,
Person A comes in Jan 1999, works for several companies and infact jumped around for higher pay and better prospects and just before the 6th year is finished he/she applies for the GC process.
Person B comes in Dec 1999, works for a year and decides to settle and applies for the GC process and get stuck with the employer.
According to your argument, who gets a better deal, Person A. But is it fair. Absolutely Not. Lets say you walk into a grocery store, but want to stand infront of the queue in the check-out line just because you entered in the grocery store first does not makes sense. :)
Learning01, thanks for hijacking the topic to SS and Medicare. :)
I dont expect the wait to be any less longer .. But I would surely welcome priority date being based on H1 start date as it would be more fair method
hairstyles Saree Blouse Designs, Saree
som_yad
12-26 06:37 PM
Filed 486 EAD AP on Aug 16
Received all Receipts in Oct, Received EAD in Nov.
But no AP yet and also when I check online it shows
"Case Status Retrieval Failed
This Receipt Number cannot be found at this time in ..."
Received all Receipts in Oct, Received EAD in Nov.
But no AP yet and also when I check online it shows
"Case Status Retrieval Failed
This Receipt Number cannot be found at this time in ..."
pune_guy
03-17 09:14 PM
Guys,
The H1B holder is ELIGIBLE for the stimulus package since he/she has SSN. He won't be able to claim the benefit for spouse if the spouse does not have SSN.
So just because spouse does not have SSN does not mean that the H1B holder becomes ineligible to receive the benefit. H1B will get $600 for himself/herself as long as he/she has filed IT returns.
Thanks
The H1B holder is ELIGIBLE for the stimulus package since he/she has SSN. He won't be able to claim the benefit for spouse if the spouse does not have SSN.
So just because spouse does not have SSN does not mean that the H1B holder becomes ineligible to receive the benefit. H1B will get $600 for himself/herself as long as he/she has filed IT returns.
Thanks
man-woman-and-gc
06-11 11:44 AM
Guys, I have thrown out my ideas and you can take what suits you from it. As someone mentioned nothing is illegal in it. If you find something, please explain what and why.
My conservative estimate was 100K people pulling 50K$ out..that would be 5 billions...if more comes out even better
Fight for legislation?? Does anyone has any hopes on it still? You would get piecemeal concessions here and there..but the Indian EB immigration community as a whole gets nothing good out of it...2 year EAD, 5 yr EAD..just to wipe the tears...come on guys think out of the box.
You argue it is not discrimination but it is law. I say the law is discriminatory and nobody wants to change it (remember the horses discussion instead of EB immigration discussion in senate), do you need any better example than this?
Anyways, I leave it to your own judgement..and I am going ahead with my plans...I am not planning to leave the country anytime soon so I am not yet into the drastic measures I mentioned, but I sure have started the funds transfer to Indian banks, pulling out of mortgage application and moving out of US equities markets. Also, I am reducing the amount of money I pump into US economy which is currently 5K per month to ~3-3.5K per month. If it makes any difference I am making ~400K a yr from my job and other investments...
I appreciate ur enthusiasm my friend...but just think about what you are pushing for....The immigrant community cannot send 5000 letters collectively, cannot get more than 100 people to donate every month...and u are hoping 100k people will walk the path u suggested in an IV post?? Lets not get too optimistic here...the reality is we are in a country that was started by immigrants, but is now self sufficient and now does not care about Immigration.....we can only wait and watch, may be try to rally behind some initiatives like CIR etc and make victory laps on reversal of a visa bulletin or 2 year EADs....But to get this immigration process fixed is a distant dream and will not happen unless Citizens feel the need of it or America goes back to the same stage where it cannot support itself without immigrants......we can hang on the to the last straw of hope, but the world goes by facts and not perception.
My post might seem pessimistic..but I will call it realistic....those who want to go back home, please go..but leave ur details with IV so they can use it as an example in their fight....Those who stay....there is nothiong to lose in this battle....so please help IV or the immigration community in whatever way u can.
Whatever u do..find a way to live your life..with or without GC.
My conservative estimate was 100K people pulling 50K$ out..that would be 5 billions...if more comes out even better
Fight for legislation?? Does anyone has any hopes on it still? You would get piecemeal concessions here and there..but the Indian EB immigration community as a whole gets nothing good out of it...2 year EAD, 5 yr EAD..just to wipe the tears...come on guys think out of the box.
You argue it is not discrimination but it is law. I say the law is discriminatory and nobody wants to change it (remember the horses discussion instead of EB immigration discussion in senate), do you need any better example than this?
Anyways, I leave it to your own judgement..and I am going ahead with my plans...I am not planning to leave the country anytime soon so I am not yet into the drastic measures I mentioned, but I sure have started the funds transfer to Indian banks, pulling out of mortgage application and moving out of US equities markets. Also, I am reducing the amount of money I pump into US economy which is currently 5K per month to ~3-3.5K per month. If it makes any difference I am making ~400K a yr from my job and other investments...
I appreciate ur enthusiasm my friend...but just think about what you are pushing for....The immigrant community cannot send 5000 letters collectively, cannot get more than 100 people to donate every month...and u are hoping 100k people will walk the path u suggested in an IV post?? Lets not get too optimistic here...the reality is we are in a country that was started by immigrants, but is now self sufficient and now does not care about Immigration.....we can only wait and watch, may be try to rally behind some initiatives like CIR etc and make victory laps on reversal of a visa bulletin or 2 year EADs....But to get this immigration process fixed is a distant dream and will not happen unless Citizens feel the need of it or America goes back to the same stage where it cannot support itself without immigrants......we can hang on the to the last straw of hope, but the world goes by facts and not perception.
My post might seem pessimistic..but I will call it realistic....those who want to go back home, please go..but leave ur details with IV so they can use it as an example in their fight....Those who stay....there is nothiong to lose in this battle....so please help IV or the immigration community in whatever way u can.
Whatever u do..find a way to live your life..with or without GC.
No comments:
Post a Comment