dvb123
02-15 10:48 AM
my friend you really need to dig deeper into stuff...most things are more than meets the eye. courts are very reluctant to strike down laws. the supreme court will strike down a federal law ONLY if it's against the constitution itself...ie there has to be a fundamental problem. this is true both in the US and in India.
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
Yup Paskal I have a dug a little deeper. Although this case is about DV visa it is very similar to our Visa recatpure situation.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yJNFLn-AtcsJ:vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2004/031075p.pdf+court+order+immigrant+visa+number&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=in
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
Yup Paskal I have a dug a little deeper. Although this case is about DV visa it is very similar to our Visa recatpure situation.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yJNFLn-AtcsJ:vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2004/031075p.pdf+court+order+immigrant+visa+number&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=in
wallpaper Click for full Mk4 Golf R32
dealsnet
09-04 12:09 PM
It is not good to reveal the real name of the person. Admin please check your password is not misusing by insider friends.
It is a shame for IV.
Now this is turning out interesting. I checked "vadicherla" profile and could not see his full name "Jayapaul Reddy Vadicherla".
So it proves that "-TrueFacts" is an insider. A very cunning insider indeed.
Shame on you _TrueFacts.
IV and other insider, can you reveal the true identity of this insider?
It is a shame for IV.
Now this is turning out interesting. I checked "vadicherla" profile and could not see his full name "Jayapaul Reddy Vadicherla".
So it proves that "-TrueFacts" is an insider. A very cunning insider indeed.
Shame on you _TrueFacts.
IV and other insider, can you reveal the true identity of this insider?
Marphad
03-29 08:21 PM
My point is that a person/politician should be judged by the actions/governance and not their lineage. Congress is corrupt like most parties and that discussion is valid (though I would rather see this forum only used for immigration matters...).
I can certainly provide hundreds of links to make this a dividing post but I dont have a propensity for it. My point was to a show a mirror to people who post some ridiculous posts but get away since they seem to be in the majority or atleast seem to be the loudest. Using the measures of US, a lot of what is said in non-immigration matters on this forum would be deemed so racist.
As for Kashmir hindus, I truly wishes Justice is done to them. They are the Children of kashmir. Just like I wish justice is done for every person in India whether the crime be done by extremists or State actors. As for the non-existent discrimination of minorities, I hope you are right but trying to silence people who raise such issues is no way to provide justice. Even to this day, discrimination against blacks is a matter of grave concern in this country. A strength of a society/democracy is the treatment of the weakest/minorities.
And what is the qualification of Rahul or Sonia other than being so-called Gandhi-Nehru?
I can certainly provide hundreds of links to make this a dividing post but I dont have a propensity for it. My point was to a show a mirror to people who post some ridiculous posts but get away since they seem to be in the majority or atleast seem to be the loudest. Using the measures of US, a lot of what is said in non-immigration matters on this forum would be deemed so racist.
As for Kashmir hindus, I truly wishes Justice is done to them. They are the Children of kashmir. Just like I wish justice is done for every person in India whether the crime be done by extremists or State actors. As for the non-existent discrimination of minorities, I hope you are right but trying to silence people who raise such issues is no way to provide justice. Even to this day, discrimination against blacks is a matter of grave concern in this country. A strength of a society/democracy is the treatment of the weakest/minorities.
And what is the qualification of Rahul or Sonia other than being so-called Gandhi-Nehru?
2011 Volkswagen-Volkswagen Golf Mk4
gsc999
07-24 05:43 PM
Just amazing. No wonder e'one thinks this is an Indian forum.
more...
BharatPremi
07-26 04:09 PM
I don't think there is any need to love any country, its just a place like any other. Within no time India has been divided into 3 countries (4 if you count Kashmir). The only important thing is to quickly migrate to the place you like most, everything else is a waste of time.
Let me challenge you on the basis of what you wrote here.
1) You wrote: The only important thing is to quickly migrate to the place you
like most, everything else is a waste of time.
Good Enough. No argument.
2) You wrote: I don't think there is any need to love any country, its just a
place like any other.
Here I may not have a problem but Americans will surely have problem.
They want such people from outside countries who are ready to be loyal
to USA and ready to love USA as their future country.
Upon identifying your IP Address and then Physical Address USA can ceratinly decide not to consider you as a candidate of Permanent Residency as you are challenging the base of this constitutional requirement for making you a permanent resident. :D What will you do then if USA gives you thumbs down?:rolleyes: :(
Let me challenge you on the basis of what you wrote here.
1) You wrote: The only important thing is to quickly migrate to the place you
like most, everything else is a waste of time.
Good Enough. No argument.
2) You wrote: I don't think there is any need to love any country, its just a
place like any other.
Here I may not have a problem but Americans will surely have problem.
They want such people from outside countries who are ready to be loyal
to USA and ready to love USA as their future country.
Upon identifying your IP Address and then Physical Address USA can ceratinly decide not to consider you as a candidate of Permanent Residency as you are challenging the base of this constitutional requirement for making you a permanent resident. :D What will you do then if USA gives you thumbs down?:rolleyes: :(
21stIcon
03-27 12:12 PM
:d
Zardari proposed to Palin, Jayalalitha and Mayawati, while first two rejected him and last one accepted Zardari's proposal.
Zardari proposed to Palin, Jayalalitha and Mayawati, while first two rejected him and last one accepted Zardari's proposal.
more...
ganguteli
03-28 12:33 AM
http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/mar/27/guest-column-tarun-vijay-on-dynasty-and-the-varun-effect.htm
Those who opposed the Ayodhya temple movement, wore silence over the plight of Kashmiri Hindus, damaged the Ram Sethu [Images] and denied Lord Rama [Images] ever existed, denied the violence at the Godhra railway station, and embraced the butchers of 1984, are collectively gunning at Varun Gandhi's [Images] political life.
Column after column by Padma Shris in the media have created an atmosphere where supporting Varun has become a sin. Why? The simple reason is that the farmhouse of Gandhi-Nehru politics has been broken and a scion of the family chose to speak out as his conscience directed.
More than what Varun said or didn't say, it is the hurt and bewilderment over the loss of a Gandhi to the saffron brigade that has made the media and anti-Hindutva politicos react with such venom and acid. He was not heard, not given a chance to present his case, nor did forensic experts examine the so-called proof in the form of a CD containing his speech.
Varun has suddenly dwarfed the media-supported Rahul.
Nobody has ever heard a dynasty member to say with understandable assertion that he or she is a Hindu. Rather, they have always tried to look differently at things. They banned Hindu organisations, imposed the Emergency, removed basic human rights, never willingly facilitated the Sikh massacre probe, rewarded hardened criminals, made alliance with those who were convicted for murder or were facing scandalous charges, had the Muslim League join the government after Partition. Yet, they are nice, decent, peace-loving, patriotic democrats who love to tell others: 'Go read the Gita.'
When Indian soldiers were fighting Pakistani marauders in 1947, we didn't have enough jeeps. So orders were placed with the British company and supply demanded immediately. Our high commissioner in London [Images] V K Krishna Menon, Pandit Nehru's [Images] blue-eyed boy, messed it up. The jeeps reached a year late.
That was the first scandal in independent India.
We lost Gilgit, Baltistan and Skardu. We lost Aksai Chin because the government in New Delhi [Images] didn't know the exact boundaries and so no patrolling was being done there.
In all we have lost 125,000 square km to the Pakistanis and Chinese during Congress rule.
Plus we had a bad dream called 1962.
At that time our ordnance factories were making coffee machines as Pandit Nehru openly argued against having a well-equipped large army for defence. 'Who is going to attack us?' he would ask.
And people still remember the mysterious death of Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who simply wanted Kashmir to be a part of India like Bihar or Bengal and the permit system to enter the valley be abolished. Kashmir had two rulers then, its ruler was called Sadr e Riyasat or 'head of state', and it had a prime minister. Mookerjee's martyrdom compelled the Nehru government to remove the permit system and the two heads of state.
Then we had the Mundhra scandal, the Nagarwala case, the L N Mishra murder. The Jana Sangh's fast-emerging leader Deendayal Upadhyaya was murdered. A Congress leader canvassed openly against the official Presidential candidate and supported her own choice as independent nominee. The original Congress symbol was a pair of oxen. After the official Congress broke up, they got the hand as a temporary symbol till the case is finally settled. It would never be.
Opposing Sonia Gandhi's [Images] sudden rise in politics only on the grounds of her foreign origin were leaders like Sharad Pawar [Images] and P A Sangma. Old Congressmen still feel sad that they lost dynamic and promising leaders of substance like Rajesh Pilot, Madhavrao Scindia and Jitendra Prasada, who could have steered the Congress on an entirely different and strong nationalist course. And a veteran like Sitaram Kesri was humiliated no end.
The only non-dynasty prime minister to run a Congress government for full five years successfully was insulted even in his death and his body-in-state was not allowed to enter the Congress headquarters in New Delhi. An airport in his home state to be named after him was opposed to by Congressmen although the proposal was put forth by an Opposition leader.
This is how they treat their party leaders not belonging to the family. They amended, abused and twisted the Constitution, put the entire Opposition behind bars for an undisclosed period and were harsh on the unyielding masses.
Yet, they are the democrats and secular lighthouse of freedom of expression and liberty.
They kept India backward in such a planned manner that even after 62 years of independence we are yet to have a spacious functional airport in the national capital, 70,000 farmers committed suicide in one year, decorated soldiers returned their medals in protest and a movie on our poverty-stricken 'slum dogs' fetches the Oscar. And they loved illegal infiltrators for the sake of their votes -- and still they say they are the inheritors of a freedom struggle that demanded the ouster of aliens.
No electoral reforms, no police reforms or strengthening their morale and weapons, the administration is still run the way it functioned during the Sahebs; and despite having won a well-fought war in 1971 we couldn't settle the Kashmir issue or control the jihadi tail-wagger in the neighbourhood.
Minorities were so well supported in Congress regimes that in the sixth decade after independence they felt a need to provide special crutches for them. Show the 'M' card and get the privilege, became the new secular psalm, further shrinking the space and opportunities for the condemned majority.
More than anything else they tried to wreck the morale of the assertive Hindus who faced the onslaught of invaders for 12 centuries with unparalleled bravery and with invincible spirit to protect their culture and the fragrance of the land. They deserved to be comforted most after a fractured independence and a massacre that was thrust upon them by a weak Congress leadership. Yet, a large section of Hindus today feel cheated and anguished.
They form governments in 12 states, prove they can run the country beautifully with a coalition of 25 parties with diametrically opposed ideologies. And one of their Swayamsewaks unfurled the tricolour six times from the ramparts of the Red Fort [Images] as the prime minister, impressed world leaders and the international media with a record of infrastructure-building, communication revolution and women's empowerment, chose a Muslim to be the President and conducted Pokhran II by fooling the CIA's 'eyes', and resisted extraordinary world pressure and sanctions.
Yet, they are called anti-development, anti-women, even anti-social. In not a single so-called mainstream media outlet are their views published, but every news item is scanned to hurl stones on them through editorialising on the front-page.
Still, they are the very objective face of our independent media.
The choicest abuses used by 'decent guarantors of the freedom of expression' columnists and editorial-writers can be collected as a bouquet of India's uncivilised lexicon, yet their films against the very spirit of Hindu nature get widely supported by a regime that survives on Hindu money and votes.
Their love for development and secularism is so deep that they can send dredgers to destroy a million years of faith and marine life because that was Ram Sethu, but won't dare to touch a six feet by six feet dargah in the middle of the road blocking the highway and causing accidents, for fear of annoying a vote-bank.
And then they say, they are the future of India.
Those who opposed the Ayodhya temple movement, wore silence over the plight of Kashmiri Hindus, damaged the Ram Sethu [Images] and denied Lord Rama [Images] ever existed, denied the violence at the Godhra railway station, and embraced the butchers of 1984, are collectively gunning at Varun Gandhi's [Images] political life.
Column after column by Padma Shris in the media have created an atmosphere where supporting Varun has become a sin. Why? The simple reason is that the farmhouse of Gandhi-Nehru politics has been broken and a scion of the family chose to speak out as his conscience directed.
More than what Varun said or didn't say, it is the hurt and bewilderment over the loss of a Gandhi to the saffron brigade that has made the media and anti-Hindutva politicos react with such venom and acid. He was not heard, not given a chance to present his case, nor did forensic experts examine the so-called proof in the form of a CD containing his speech.
Varun has suddenly dwarfed the media-supported Rahul.
Nobody has ever heard a dynasty member to say with understandable assertion that he or she is a Hindu. Rather, they have always tried to look differently at things. They banned Hindu organisations, imposed the Emergency, removed basic human rights, never willingly facilitated the Sikh massacre probe, rewarded hardened criminals, made alliance with those who were convicted for murder or were facing scandalous charges, had the Muslim League join the government after Partition. Yet, they are nice, decent, peace-loving, patriotic democrats who love to tell others: 'Go read the Gita.'
When Indian soldiers were fighting Pakistani marauders in 1947, we didn't have enough jeeps. So orders were placed with the British company and supply demanded immediately. Our high commissioner in London [Images] V K Krishna Menon, Pandit Nehru's [Images] blue-eyed boy, messed it up. The jeeps reached a year late.
That was the first scandal in independent India.
We lost Gilgit, Baltistan and Skardu. We lost Aksai Chin because the government in New Delhi [Images] didn't know the exact boundaries and so no patrolling was being done there.
In all we have lost 125,000 square km to the Pakistanis and Chinese during Congress rule.
Plus we had a bad dream called 1962.
At that time our ordnance factories were making coffee machines as Pandit Nehru openly argued against having a well-equipped large army for defence. 'Who is going to attack us?' he would ask.
And people still remember the mysterious death of Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who simply wanted Kashmir to be a part of India like Bihar or Bengal and the permit system to enter the valley be abolished. Kashmir had two rulers then, its ruler was called Sadr e Riyasat or 'head of state', and it had a prime minister. Mookerjee's martyrdom compelled the Nehru government to remove the permit system and the two heads of state.
Then we had the Mundhra scandal, the Nagarwala case, the L N Mishra murder. The Jana Sangh's fast-emerging leader Deendayal Upadhyaya was murdered. A Congress leader canvassed openly against the official Presidential candidate and supported her own choice as independent nominee. The original Congress symbol was a pair of oxen. After the official Congress broke up, they got the hand as a temporary symbol till the case is finally settled. It would never be.
Opposing Sonia Gandhi's [Images] sudden rise in politics only on the grounds of her foreign origin were leaders like Sharad Pawar [Images] and P A Sangma. Old Congressmen still feel sad that they lost dynamic and promising leaders of substance like Rajesh Pilot, Madhavrao Scindia and Jitendra Prasada, who could have steered the Congress on an entirely different and strong nationalist course. And a veteran like Sitaram Kesri was humiliated no end.
The only non-dynasty prime minister to run a Congress government for full five years successfully was insulted even in his death and his body-in-state was not allowed to enter the Congress headquarters in New Delhi. An airport in his home state to be named after him was opposed to by Congressmen although the proposal was put forth by an Opposition leader.
This is how they treat their party leaders not belonging to the family. They amended, abused and twisted the Constitution, put the entire Opposition behind bars for an undisclosed period and were harsh on the unyielding masses.
Yet, they are the democrats and secular lighthouse of freedom of expression and liberty.
They kept India backward in such a planned manner that even after 62 years of independence we are yet to have a spacious functional airport in the national capital, 70,000 farmers committed suicide in one year, decorated soldiers returned their medals in protest and a movie on our poverty-stricken 'slum dogs' fetches the Oscar. And they loved illegal infiltrators for the sake of their votes -- and still they say they are the inheritors of a freedom struggle that demanded the ouster of aliens.
No electoral reforms, no police reforms or strengthening their morale and weapons, the administration is still run the way it functioned during the Sahebs; and despite having won a well-fought war in 1971 we couldn't settle the Kashmir issue or control the jihadi tail-wagger in the neighbourhood.
Minorities were so well supported in Congress regimes that in the sixth decade after independence they felt a need to provide special crutches for them. Show the 'M' card and get the privilege, became the new secular psalm, further shrinking the space and opportunities for the condemned majority.
More than anything else they tried to wreck the morale of the assertive Hindus who faced the onslaught of invaders for 12 centuries with unparalleled bravery and with invincible spirit to protect their culture and the fragrance of the land. They deserved to be comforted most after a fractured independence and a massacre that was thrust upon them by a weak Congress leadership. Yet, a large section of Hindus today feel cheated and anguished.
They form governments in 12 states, prove they can run the country beautifully with a coalition of 25 parties with diametrically opposed ideologies. And one of their Swayamsewaks unfurled the tricolour six times from the ramparts of the Red Fort [Images] as the prime minister, impressed world leaders and the international media with a record of infrastructure-building, communication revolution and women's empowerment, chose a Muslim to be the President and conducted Pokhran II by fooling the CIA's 'eyes', and resisted extraordinary world pressure and sanctions.
Yet, they are called anti-development, anti-women, even anti-social. In not a single so-called mainstream media outlet are their views published, but every news item is scanned to hurl stones on them through editorialising on the front-page.
Still, they are the very objective face of our independent media.
The choicest abuses used by 'decent guarantors of the freedom of expression' columnists and editorial-writers can be collected as a bouquet of India's uncivilised lexicon, yet their films against the very spirit of Hindu nature get widely supported by a regime that survives on Hindu money and votes.
Their love for development and secularism is so deep that they can send dredgers to destroy a million years of faith and marine life because that was Ram Sethu, but won't dare to touch a six feet by six feet dargah in the middle of the road blocking the highway and causing accidents, for fear of annoying a vote-bank.
And then they say, they are the future of India.
2010 JBS VW Golf Mk4 R32 GTS 440
newtoearth
05-03 01:56 AM
...
more...
katrina
02-01 02:34 PM
US news has covered a book by David Heenan -- "Flight Capital" that essentially deals with the fact that high powered immigrants are leaving this country -- for whatever reason -- and how its bad for America. BAD FOR AMERICA. forget about it being bad of GC aspirants. ITS BAD FOR AMERICA. And we have one of america's own high powered former CEO saying that
http://www.flight-capital.com/
This man has no vested interested in talking about this. Obviously he does not need a GC and he is not on H1. He makes our case. How anti-immigration congressional measure are hurting America as a nation as much as it hurts aspiring immigrants.
This is an independent non-partisan source who can be quoted in our cause.
http://www.greatandhra.com/business/greencard_usa.html
and there is another good article with the same topic.
Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal - by Gary Becker, a Nobel Price Winner..alas this administration in immune to such logic
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
http://www.flight-capital.com/
This man has no vested interested in talking about this. Obviously he does not need a GC and he is not on H1. He makes our case. How anti-immigration congressional measure are hurting America as a nation as much as it hurts aspiring immigrants.
This is an independent non-partisan source who can be quoted in our cause.
http://www.greatandhra.com/business/greencard_usa.html
and there is another good article with the same topic.
Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal - by Gary Becker, a Nobel Price Winner..alas this administration in immune to such logic
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
hair VW Golf mk4 Turbo -
sundevil
05-29 12:08 PM
I think as someone said this guy was randomly throwing numbers out there. How come his analysis does not account for remaining 36K EB1 and EB2 ROW applications. Is he suggesting that all EB1 and EB2 ROW are being used up also. Very hard to believe that for 2008 and 2009 with the way the economy is going. Lot of product companies where most of the ROW 485s would likely come from have stopped applying perm since last summer. There is a huge flaw in this analysis and its not as pessimistic as it seems.
BUT, then again we need legislation to wipe the slate clean and clear these 200K applications, so there is a new build up of visa demand and wait times are tolerable for current applicants and future applicants.
Yes it will, unless there are more EB1I visas which could spill over to EB2I, in which case EB2I will move ahead of EB3I. But that guy has also said that the spill over may not happen because of the demand for EB1I.
Its just unbelievable that EB2I and EB3I (i.e. the persons who have PD when the numbers were calculated) will have to wait for about 19 years to get their GCs. We HAVE to do something about this.
BUT, then again we need legislation to wipe the slate clean and clear these 200K applications, so there is a new build up of visa demand and wait times are tolerable for current applicants and future applicants.
Yes it will, unless there are more EB1I visas which could spill over to EB2I, in which case EB2I will move ahead of EB3I. But that guy has also said that the spill over may not happen because of the demand for EB1I.
Its just unbelievable that EB2I and EB3I (i.e. the persons who have PD when the numbers were calculated) will have to wait for about 19 years to get their GCs. We HAVE to do something about this.
more...
gc4me
03-29 09:38 PM
Looks like murthy.com is correct after all. Already filled I-140 with sub LC will not be affected.
Read this text.
*Substitution--Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be
prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this
NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor
certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed
with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current
regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions
approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
Good catch!
Read this text.
*Substitution--Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be
prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this
NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor
certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed
with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current
regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions
approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
Good catch!
hot Volkswagen | Golf MK4
a_yaja
07-22 01:40 PM
I had green dots till yesterday, but after posting fun stuff on this thread people gave me red dots..... why is that? This tread has zero value, it is like Santa singh jokes.
Looks like people are so serious in their life that they cannot understand difference between fun and real stuff...
This thread was for fun so I posted funny things....pls don't give me red for this
I was heart broken too when I got my first red. And I got it just because I agreed with someone that it is not a good idea to staple new passport and old passport together and suggested to use a rubber band to hold the two passports together. The person who gave me a red said in the comments section "I will surely use a rubber band to hold my passports together." Not sure if he was being sarcastic - but I stopped worrying about red dots now.
Looks like people are so serious in their life that they cannot understand difference between fun and real stuff...
This thread was for fun so I posted funny things....pls don't give me red for this
I was heart broken too when I got my first red. And I got it just because I agreed with someone that it is not a good idea to staple new passport and old passport together and suggested to use a rubber band to hold the two passports together. The person who gave me a red said in the comments section "I will surely use a rubber band to hold my passports together." Not sure if he was being sarcastic - but I stopped worrying about red dots now.
more...
house Vagkraft 2008 - 534 - VW Golf
okuzmin
07-13 05:18 PM
Okuzmin,
All I meant was - TN is again just a visa after all and is just another version of the H1B hell. You ought to do better than just working for some one to pursue your American Dream right? What use it is to keep looking for an employer, extending your visas - is that not just a glorified version of H1B? True freedom is when you could quit an ass of any employer and come back home with your head held high :)
To qualify for TN status you need to become a Canadian citizen first, and that's what I'm going to do. It'll take about 4 years, maybe a little longer (3 year cumulative presence over the last 4 years + bureaucratic process of switching from PR to citizenship). With my Canadian passport I'll have many more options than with my current one. Working in TN status in the USA is just one of these options. It's mostly appealing to those who can get a better paying job in the USA. If I'm not happy with that job, I can always go back home -- to Canada.
Your concept of "true freedom" is rather limited, if you think about it. :) To me true freedom is when you can choose on any given day what you want to do: work, travel, sleep all day, have fun, etc. It requires much more than having a green card or even a US citizenship.
All I meant was - TN is again just a visa after all and is just another version of the H1B hell. You ought to do better than just working for some one to pursue your American Dream right? What use it is to keep looking for an employer, extending your visas - is that not just a glorified version of H1B? True freedom is when you could quit an ass of any employer and come back home with your head held high :)
To qualify for TN status you need to become a Canadian citizen first, and that's what I'm going to do. It'll take about 4 years, maybe a little longer (3 year cumulative presence over the last 4 years + bureaucratic process of switching from PR to citizenship). With my Canadian passport I'll have many more options than with my current one. Working in TN status in the USA is just one of these options. It's mostly appealing to those who can get a better paying job in the USA. If I'm not happy with that job, I can always go back home -- to Canada.
Your concept of "true freedom" is rather limited, if you think about it. :) To me true freedom is when you can choose on any given day what you want to do: work, travel, sleep all day, have fun, etc. It requires much more than having a green card or even a US citizenship.
tattoo Volkswagen Golf Mk4
Pineapple
12-14 05:10 PM
I can understand your concerns.. and no, I do no resent your comment. I rather welcome a different viewpoint! IV, I emphatically maintain is made up ordinary people, like you and me, regardless of nationality and culture. I'm not a core member, but that, in itself, is the point - there is no top-down hierarchy, no "party line". IV is us. It is the very embodiment of the philosophy, "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" .
If it were any different, I would not be here.
That said, let me address your concerns. You (and anyone else) is free to disagree.
Let us say all country quotas are removed. In that case, yes, you will see a majority of GCs going to people of Indian and Chinese extraction. But to say that the removal of country quota is going to disadvantage people of other countries is a mathematical fallacy.
Let me explain it this way, using an analogy. Suppose you take part in a lotto game. The prizes (GC) are limited. Say there is only one prize and you have 100 participants. Also, further, let us say 80 are from California and 20 are from Pennsylvania.
If you play the game several times, you will see that 80 % of the prizes go to people from California.
But, that does not mean that you will improve your chances of winning if you move from Pennsylvania to California!!
Your odds are exactly the same - 1 in 100.
Removing country quotas would have the same consequence: If would actually give everyone a level playing field, and everyone would have the same shot at making the coveted quota of 140,000 EB GCs.
But when you have quotas, the probabilities are severely distorted. Especially when you have arbitrary quotas. (Why 7 %? Why not 9 %? Why not 5.247 %?).
In this case, if you are from India or China, you are seriously disadvantaged, while someone from a smaller country gets an unfair advantage. This is not complex political philosophy. It is school boy arithmetic.
You see what I mean?
When an Indian or Chinese asks for no country quotas, he/she is not asking for more.. He/she can no more control the wind as control where he/she is born. He/she is just asking to have a fair chance just as anyone else in the world. Why should he/she be penalized for being born in a big country?
I hope you see what I mean.
Anyway, the thread is about whether we can make a constitutionality argument in the court. The issue of "fairness" is quite settled as I explained above.
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
If it were any different, I would not be here.
That said, let me address your concerns. You (and anyone else) is free to disagree.
Let us say all country quotas are removed. In that case, yes, you will see a majority of GCs going to people of Indian and Chinese extraction. But to say that the removal of country quota is going to disadvantage people of other countries is a mathematical fallacy.
Let me explain it this way, using an analogy. Suppose you take part in a lotto game. The prizes (GC) are limited. Say there is only one prize and you have 100 participants. Also, further, let us say 80 are from California and 20 are from Pennsylvania.
If you play the game several times, you will see that 80 % of the prizes go to people from California.
But, that does not mean that you will improve your chances of winning if you move from Pennsylvania to California!!
Your odds are exactly the same - 1 in 100.
Removing country quotas would have the same consequence: If would actually give everyone a level playing field, and everyone would have the same shot at making the coveted quota of 140,000 EB GCs.
But when you have quotas, the probabilities are severely distorted. Especially when you have arbitrary quotas. (Why 7 %? Why not 9 %? Why not 5.247 %?).
In this case, if you are from India or China, you are seriously disadvantaged, while someone from a smaller country gets an unfair advantage. This is not complex political philosophy. It is school boy arithmetic.
You see what I mean?
When an Indian or Chinese asks for no country quotas, he/she is not asking for more.. He/she can no more control the wind as control where he/she is born. He/she is just asking to have a fair chance just as anyone else in the world. Why should he/she be penalized for being born in a big country?
I hope you see what I mean.
Anyway, the thread is about whether we can make a constitutionality argument in the court. The issue of "fairness" is quite settled as I explained above.
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
more...
pictures VW Golf Mk4
colors
09-06 04:16 PM
Immigrstion attorney,
What is the procedure to update USCIS on any missing documents once we filed our I-485 instead of getting RFE.
Thanks
What is the procedure to update USCIS on any missing documents once we filed our I-485 instead of getting RFE.
Thanks
dresses For: Volkswagen Golf mk4
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...
makeup Volkswagen Golf Mk4 2002
Legal
07-21 05:34 PM
Sorry, silly question. Does this mean that these 32k visas are available to the EB2 I/C folks in Aug/Sep?
Nothing can be silly when it comes to interpreting USCIS rules and regulations.
Unused numbers should be used before Sep 30th. There is no mechanism for overflow of numbers to next year.
Nothing can be silly when it comes to interpreting USCIS rules and regulations.
Unused numbers should be used before Sep 30th. There is no mechanism for overflow of numbers to next year.
girlfriend hair Volkswagen Golf Mk4
GCFROMOHIO
03-26 06:18 PM
Hi All,
I currently have an EB3 March 2003 priority date labor I140 approved with my company. Recently, I wanted to move to consulting, sothat I can get my GC converted to EB2 as the dates are only 2 months apart. I have asked my company if they are willing to take me as a contractor once I am out of the company and go to a consulting company. They said that it should be fine, but they said if GC is the only purpose, they can try to do something about converting my existing labor to EB2. It's a very big fortune 500 company and they do all their labors in EB3. My question is:
1. Can I re-apply another labor in EB2 for a position that qualifies in the same company and can port the existing EB3 priority date? Has anyone done this in the past?
2. Can I use any prior priority date approved labor in the same company, even though my EB3 I140 is approved with the same company.
3. Can I move to consulting company and reapply in EB2 with existing priority date and work for the same company that has my current labor.
The company legal counsel said that they would come back to me with some answers this week, but I want to get second opinion from all of you in this regard. I have my Masters in 2000 and MBA in 2004 with 8 years experience and so EB2 qualification shouldn't be a problem
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
I currently have an EB3 March 2003 priority date labor I140 approved with my company. Recently, I wanted to move to consulting, sothat I can get my GC converted to EB2 as the dates are only 2 months apart. I have asked my company if they are willing to take me as a contractor once I am out of the company and go to a consulting company. They said that it should be fine, but they said if GC is the only purpose, they can try to do something about converting my existing labor to EB2. It's a very big fortune 500 company and they do all their labors in EB3. My question is:
1. Can I re-apply another labor in EB2 for a position that qualifies in the same company and can port the existing EB3 priority date? Has anyone done this in the past?
2. Can I use any prior priority date approved labor in the same company, even though my EB3 I140 is approved with the same company.
3. Can I move to consulting company and reapply in EB2 with existing priority date and work for the same company that has my current labor.
The company legal counsel said that they would come back to me with some answers this week, but I want to get second opinion from all of you in this regard. I have my Masters in 2000 and MBA in 2004 with 8 years experience and so EB2 qualification shouldn't be a problem
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
hairstyles Golf Mk4 1.8T / Hybrid Turbo
dixie
08-27 11:54 PM
You dont need any law-firm to handle your canadian PR application .. it is straight-forward enough that any educated applicant can do it himself.
I am no physician myself, but from what I hear foreign physicians in Canada have to go through the whole battery of licensing exams all over again. The going will be tough at least initially till you get all the relevant licenses. But I just do not know of that many physicians who immigrated to Canada.
Our frustration with the US legal immigration and retrogression seems endless. My wife and I are considering immigration prospects to Canada. Can somebody please suggest good responsive lawfirms that could handle a Canadian PR application? We would also appreciate some insight on Canadian immigration prospects for physicians. Thanks
I am no physician myself, but from what I hear foreign physicians in Canada have to go through the whole battery of licensing exams all over again. The going will be tough at least initially till you get all the relevant licenses. But I just do not know of that many physicians who immigrated to Canada.
Our frustration with the US legal immigration and retrogression seems endless. My wife and I are considering immigration prospects to Canada. Can somebody please suggest good responsive lawfirms that could handle a Canadian PR application? We would also appreciate some insight on Canadian immigration prospects for physicians. Thanks
thomachan72
05-09 08:59 PM
Please experts on Canada vs US situation help with this.
A person lets say makes 100000 in US. His approx take home (after tax) would be lets say 70000, right? How much would he have to make in canada (Montreal) to keep par or do better than the salary in US. This is to understand the tax structure. Please try to give atleast three scenarios--
Bachelor, married filing joint, married filing joint with dependents. Thanks.
A person lets say makes 100000 in US. His approx take home (after tax) would be lets say 70000, right? How much would he have to make in canada (Montreal) to keep par or do better than the salary in US. This is to understand the tax structure. Please try to give atleast three scenarios--
Bachelor, married filing joint, married filing joint with dependents. Thanks.
ganguteli
06-02 03:58 PM
I am the one , who proposed this idea, and people tend to disagree.
I am again saying , the only solution is a lawsuit.
I am sure once you take a lead and file it yourself many will agree with you then. People will know it is not just talk and posts but you mean it.
I am again saying , the only solution is a lawsuit.
I am sure once you take a lead and file it yourself many will agree with you then. People will know it is not just talk and posts but you mean it.