gc28262
09-26 10:14 AM
Democrats will continue their push for CIR even after election.
Illegal immigrant numbers are in millions. Illegals are guaranteed vote banks for democrats. These illegals once legalized will permanently shift the political fortunes in favor of democrats.
If CIR is passed, we may not see another republican president in US history !
Illegal immigrant numbers are in millions. Illegals are guaranteed vote banks for democrats. These illegals once legalized will permanently shift the political fortunes in favor of democrats.
If CIR is passed, we may not see another republican president in US history !
wallpaper women fashion Angie Harmon
bhatt
06-05 09:32 PM
http://seattlebubble.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/home-price-to-rent_2009-01.png
Althought this is just for seattle area, this trend is more or less the same nationwide.
According to this graph we need to wait out atleast one more year for the Rent - to- Price ratio to come down to the historical averages. But you get the Federal first -time home owner credit of $8000 (more in CA) only if you buy before the end of this year. So in my opinion, a good time to buy a house is in the month of december this year, if not the best time to buy. Now this is with an assumsion that mortgage rates don't rise substantially.
All the time is good time to buy home( there is no particular good time). It depends on which house you are buying at what price.
once the interest rates shoots up( which is happening now - 2 week back it was 4.5 , now it is 5.65 ) its price will come down.
If you don't have gc and a have a steady job get a condo or townhome instead of big house. Also you can get a FHA loan with 3% down payment ! . the interest rate will be .5% above the normal rate and no need of PMI.
Althought this is just for seattle area, this trend is more or less the same nationwide.
According to this graph we need to wait out atleast one more year for the Rent - to- Price ratio to come down to the historical averages. But you get the Federal first -time home owner credit of $8000 (more in CA) only if you buy before the end of this year. So in my opinion, a good time to buy a house is in the month of december this year, if not the best time to buy. Now this is with an assumsion that mortgage rates don't rise substantially.
All the time is good time to buy home( there is no particular good time). It depends on which house you are buying at what price.
once the interest rates shoots up( which is happening now - 2 week back it was 4.5 , now it is 5.65 ) its price will come down.
If you don't have gc and a have a steady job get a condo or townhome instead of big house. Also you can get a FHA loan with 3% down payment ! . the interest rate will be .5% above the normal rate and no need of PMI.
SunnySurya
08-05 01:45 PM
Why, what is difference? Why was labor substitution bad. It was perfectly legal after all.
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s . Not just what their lawyer says ?
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s . Not just what their lawyer says ?
2011 Angie Harmon Anne Hathaway
dealsnet
01-07 10:14 AM
Arafat supported Sadam for a land for Palastine. He was promised Kuwait City, which can house 2 million people for them. Iraq can take the oil field of Kuwait. Sadam army driven away and killed thousands of kuwaitis and raped the women. The kids born during the period are housed in a govt. complex now with their mothers. I have seen that, when I was in a visit to Kuwait. Why the palastine people, any way most of the Arabs are nomards, want to stay in Israel, to keep fight. They can move out and end of the story.Israel come back and claim their fore father's property. If all muslims want to fight, do it and will go to hell.
Immigration voice is for immigration matters. But most people in the forum are from India, china, pakistan, srilanka etc. So we can discuss matters from our countries. Here nobody from Palastine, or Israel is here. So no need for this discussion. Only terrorists, fundamentalists wants a discussion for these unrelated matters.
Why no body discuss about 4000 tamils killed in Srilanks in 2008?. This numbers released by their govt. yesterday. Donot think tamils went to srilanka and fight for the land. They are there from thousand of years. Tamil language spoken in india also, so people think these people went there recently. The Singala people also from India, went there from Orissa. Their language is not speaking in India now. Look the script, it is similar to some indian, dravidan script and similar words.
International media give much coverage for 1 or 2 people killed in Israel or Palastine. But thosands killed in Africa, other palces every day.
My point is sivakasi rocket has the capability of killing 6 people and 7000 hamas rockets taken lesser than that. We are reacting as if they have wiped out the entire nation. How inferior these rockets are when compared to sivakasi rocket. I am not justifying the rocket attack, but pointing out their impact and the voilent reaction to that.
Every nation has right to defend itself and its people. Isreal has the same rights to protect people. That doesn't mean they can go and kill innocent civilians including elderly person, women, children, shcool children and bombing schools, hospitals, detroying infrastructure etc. After killing school kids, just dont justify your killing by saying they use kids as human shield. Dont destroy and don't lie.
Immigration voice is for immigration matters. But most people in the forum are from India, china, pakistan, srilanka etc. So we can discuss matters from our countries. Here nobody from Palastine, or Israel is here. So no need for this discussion. Only terrorists, fundamentalists wants a discussion for these unrelated matters.
Why no body discuss about 4000 tamils killed in Srilanks in 2008?. This numbers released by their govt. yesterday. Donot think tamils went to srilanka and fight for the land. They are there from thousand of years. Tamil language spoken in india also, so people think these people went there recently. The Singala people also from India, went there from Orissa. Their language is not speaking in India now. Look the script, it is similar to some indian, dravidan script and similar words.
International media give much coverage for 1 or 2 people killed in Israel or Palastine. But thosands killed in Africa, other palces every day.
My point is sivakasi rocket has the capability of killing 6 people and 7000 hamas rockets taken lesser than that. We are reacting as if they have wiped out the entire nation. How inferior these rockets are when compared to sivakasi rocket. I am not justifying the rocket attack, but pointing out their impact and the voilent reaction to that.
Every nation has right to defend itself and its people. Isreal has the same rights to protect people. That doesn't mean they can go and kill innocent civilians including elderly person, women, children, shcool children and bombing schools, hospitals, detroying infrastructure etc. After killing school kids, just dont justify your killing by saying they use kids as human shield. Dont destroy and don't lie.
more...
chintu25
08-06 12:59 PM
Other than the July 07 USCIS debacle reversal thread, this is the best thread in IV so far.
This is the chill pill for all of us ....................
This is the chill pill for all of us ....................
pitha
09-26 09:46 AM
All this is going to happen in the very first year itself. Obama has already said CIR would be his priority for his first year. Dick Durbin and Obama will "reform" the EB system exactly the way you described below. In 2008 we have seen some eb friendly bills introduced by lofgren like visa recapture and exemption for STEM. Once Obama becomes president(which is almost a certainty) he will outsource the EB issues to Dick Durbin and he will make sure none of the EB friendly issues like visa recapture and exemption for STEM will happen. In addition obama and durbin will make our lives miserable with draconian restrictions on EB. We are alreday seeing USCIS denying AC21 485 (there is a seperate thread on this). If situation is like this now just imagine how horrible it would be with Obama and durbin.
Why do I feel discouraged? If anything is going to happen for the immigrant community when Sen. Obama becomes the President, it is going to be in the lines of CIR 2007. There would be provisions to make illegal immigrants as legal and remove backlogs to family based quota whereas posing harsh restrictions on H1b visas and reducing Green Card quotas and scrap AC21 portability and try to experiment with some new kind of skilled immigration system.
Why do I feel discouraged? If anything is going to happen for the immigrant community when Sen. Obama becomes the President, it is going to be in the lines of CIR 2007. There would be provisions to make illegal immigrants as legal and remove backlogs to family based quota whereas posing harsh restrictions on H1b visas and reducing Green Card quotas and scrap AC21 portability and try to experiment with some new kind of skilled immigration system.
more...
gccovet
08-05 04:10 PM
WOW!!!!!!!!!!Rolling_Flood will be ROFLOL!!!!!!
What a waste of time, folks!!!!
What a waste of time, folks!!!!
2010 Angie Harmon Hot Photos: ea02z
Macaca
05-09 05:51 PM
After bin Laden, U.S. Will Look East (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/05/06/after_bin_laden_us_will_look_east_99510.html) By Daniel Kilman | German Marshall Fund
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
more...
![angie harmon hot. hot [Angie Harmon] [Rizzoli](http://static10.imagecollect.com/preview/137/88ffa765d446a82 "hot [Angie Harmon] [Rizzoli")
pmb76
12-17 02:40 PM
Guys and Gals,
Everybody his entitled to his/her views and express them freely. That in itself among the many great things about this country. However at the same time this is an immigration forum. Please desist from making comments that diverge from the topic or create rifts in achieving our common goal - EB reform.
When you're in this country you are not judged by the color of your skin, religion, faith or beliefs. You aren't judged by where you came from but where you're going. We are all in that pursuit of happiness.
Remember you have several other newsgroups, message boards and blogs to express your views. Stop using IV for matters other than immigration - particularly the ones that are controversial and cause to create sense of discomfort among members.
Everybody his entitled to his/her views and express them freely. That in itself among the many great things about this country. However at the same time this is an immigration forum. Please desist from making comments that diverge from the topic or create rifts in achieving our common goal - EB reform.
When you're in this country you are not judged by the color of your skin, religion, faith or beliefs. You aren't judged by where you came from but where you're going. We are all in that pursuit of happiness.
Remember you have several other newsgroups, message boards and blogs to express your views. Stop using IV for matters other than immigration - particularly the ones that are controversial and cause to create sense of discomfort among members.
hair Actress Angie Harmon attends
alisa
04-07 03:21 PM
I never thought online poker would get outlawed in USA. See this.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/2006-10-02-internet-gambling-usat_x.htm
So, forgive me for not feeling comfortable when people tell me that they think a certain law will not pass.
This is the same breed of people who authorized the Iraq war. If that disaster had not happened, maybe they could have debated other issues, and we would have had some immigration reform by now.
So, what should be do about this?
There are many big companies that depend completely on consultants for their software projects. Example Sony, Boeing... If this applies to existing H1bs then their projects will suffer a great loss.
ERP softwares basically are implemented by consulting firms .Then all big companies including Oracle,SAP cannot implement their applications anywhere as they have to hire people on their own to implement.All ERP implementations can be treated as consulting.This is going to be a big mess.
I don't think this bill is going pass successfully.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/2006-10-02-internet-gambling-usat_x.htm
So, forgive me for not feeling comfortable when people tell me that they think a certain law will not pass.
This is the same breed of people who authorized the Iraq war. If that disaster had not happened, maybe they could have debated other issues, and we would have had some immigration reform by now.
So, what should be do about this?
There are many big companies that depend completely on consultants for their software projects. Example Sony, Boeing... If this applies to existing H1bs then their projects will suffer a great loss.
ERP softwares basically are implemented by consulting firms .Then all big companies including Oracle,SAP cannot implement their applications anywhere as they have to hire people on their own to implement.All ERP implementations can be treated as consulting.This is going to be a big mess.
I don't think this bill is going pass successfully.
more...
Macaca
05-20 06:13 PM
The United States v Canada (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration) The Economist
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
hot Angie Harmon Hot
new_horizon
12-17 05:06 PM
the mumbai incident was a terrible one. the guilty must be punished to the fullest extent, be it people from any background doing it in the name of religion.
In the same way the people in this forum should have been angry/troubled over the killings in orissa where innocent christians were beaten, raped, killed, burned alive, home destroyed and chased from the homes to the jungles just because of their faith. this sort of crimes against christians is taking place throughout many parts of India. I am sure this will not go unpunished on the people who did/do these terrible things. the punishment may be delayed, but I am 100% sure it's going to be devastating on the people. mark my words. 'Coz I believe there is a God above, who watches and at the appointed time the punishment will come.
But the bible also says that God is forgiving. The Bible says the following:
"If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John; chap 1 verse 9)
Also it says in the book of John (chapter 3 verse 16):
"For God so loved the world (mankind) that he gave his son Jesus Christ to die as a sacrifice (for the sins of mankind), that whoever believes in Him (and repent), shall not perish but have eternal life".
In the same way the people in this forum should have been angry/troubled over the killings in orissa where innocent christians were beaten, raped, killed, burned alive, home destroyed and chased from the homes to the jungles just because of their faith. this sort of crimes against christians is taking place throughout many parts of India. I am sure this will not go unpunished on the people who did/do these terrible things. the punishment may be delayed, but I am 100% sure it's going to be devastating on the people. mark my words. 'Coz I believe there is a God above, who watches and at the appointed time the punishment will come.
But the bible also says that God is forgiving. The Bible says the following:
"If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John; chap 1 verse 9)
Also it says in the book of John (chapter 3 verse 16):
"For God so loved the world (mankind) that he gave his son Jesus Christ to die as a sacrifice (for the sins of mankind), that whoever believes in Him (and repent), shall not perish but have eternal life".
more...
house Angie Harmon picture gallery
Macaca
12-23 10:53 AM
Pelosi's first year as House speaker marked by little change on war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/23/MNOUU26C5.DTL&tsp=1) By Zachary Coile | SF Chronicle, Dec 23, 2007
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
tattoo Angie Harmon Hot Photos: 118
siravi
09-30 05:41 PM
If Obama becomes president can he restore the faith of high-skilled immigrant who play by the books and still have to wait for decades to get their Green Card.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
Hmm this is a tough one ....as much as I'd like to see, really, see Obama get the chance to make the "change" he wants to bring about, having Sen. Durbin along with him, driving the immigration policy does not bode well. And by the way, with that outlook on high-skilled immigration how can he claim he is "for change"? Very likely, am missing something here, so forgive me (and enlighten me!). Because I do, sincerely want to see him as the president. But it does seem that Sen. Durbin has been rather hostile towards employment-based immigration and that makes the Obama-for-prez a really tough deal.
Have been here for 12+ years, working as now a teacher and before that as a student. Have always been responsible --paying regular taxes, following the long, obstacles ridden trail to get GC, but I think now its getting very tiresome and unfair and its high time someone really looked into our issues and made "change" for the better.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
Hmm this is a tough one ....as much as I'd like to see, really, see Obama get the chance to make the "change" he wants to bring about, having Sen. Durbin along with him, driving the immigration policy does not bode well. And by the way, with that outlook on high-skilled immigration how can he claim he is "for change"? Very likely, am missing something here, so forgive me (and enlighten me!). Because I do, sincerely want to see him as the president. But it does seem that Sen. Durbin has been rather hostile towards employment-based immigration and that makes the Obama-for-prez a really tough deal.
Have been here for 12+ years, working as now a teacher and before that as a student. Have always been responsible --paying regular taxes, following the long, obstacles ridden trail to get GC, but I think now its getting very tiresome and unfair and its high time someone really looked into our issues and made "change" for the better.
more...
pictures Angie Harmon Hot Photos: ea02z 4642
sc3
07-14 04:23 PM
I hope not. We dont seem to be open to another point of view. All of a sudden when the shoe is now on the other foot there is a lot of heart burn. Look up the March 2008 visa bulletin.
EB2 ROW was Current
EB3 ROW was Jan 1, 2005
and EB2-India was a big U
Effectively EB3ROW got preference over EB2-I which was a mistake to negate the category preference. This has been corrected now and I welcome the change.
Where was all this heart burn at that time. All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
The reason for this was not because of EB3ROW getting preference, it was because USCIS illegally used up entire year's quota before the congress actually authorized them to. Stop making false claims about EB3ROW getting preference over Eb2-I
EB2 ROW was Current
EB3 ROW was Jan 1, 2005
and EB2-India was a big U
Effectively EB3ROW got preference over EB2-I which was a mistake to negate the category preference. This has been corrected now and I welcome the change.
Where was all this heart burn at that time. All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
The reason for this was not because of EB3ROW getting preference, it was because USCIS illegally used up entire year's quota before the congress actually authorized them to. Stop making false claims about EB3ROW getting preference over Eb2-I
dresses Harmon so gorgeous and a
rbalaji5
07-13 02:03 PM
But the same 100-0 logic can be applied between EB1 and Eb2-India. How does EB1 of 2008 get it immediately but EB2-I waits more than 4 years (speaking for myself here) -clearly preference is at play here. if that makes sense then a 100-0 ratio for EB2/EB3 also makes sense
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
What you said is correct.?.
EB2 has more experience / advance degree compared to EB3. EB1 has more advanced than EB2.
Can you give preference to 12th Standard guy instead of Engineering guy.
I agree with Pappu
Each employment based categories are for different levels.
Wakeup EB2s..
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
What you said is correct.?.
EB2 has more experience / advance degree compared to EB3. EB1 has more advanced than EB2.
Can you give preference to 12th Standard guy instead of Engineering guy.
I agree with Pappu
Each employment based categories are for different levels.
Wakeup EB2s..
more...
makeup hot [Angie Harmon] [Rizzoli
number30
03-24 03:39 PM
UN,
I can't help asking this.
I have been following your posts for a while. I know you are quite knowledgeable in immigration.
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
I like to believe you are unbiased. Please let us know.
Moment you bring such things into the forum discussions will stop and goes somewhere else.
I can't help asking this.
I have been following your posts for a while. I know you are quite knowledgeable in immigration.
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
I like to believe you are unbiased. Please let us know.
Moment you bring such things into the forum discussions will stop and goes somewhere else.
girlfriend Angie Harmon ABWSigned jpg
file485
07-07 10:14 PM
Actually ..I had even read somewhere in these forums, that 'out of status' etc will be considered since the last entry into the country..
in your case, if he re entered into the country in 2002, the previous status should not be considered...but we can never argue with the immigration officers,once it gets into their head,they can be the most 'sanki' guys..
take appt with Rajiv Khanna/Murthy without wasting any minute further..
in your case, if he re entered into the country in 2002, the previous status should not be considered...but we can never argue with the immigration officers,once it gets into their head,they can be the most 'sanki' guys..
take appt with Rajiv Khanna/Murthy without wasting any minute further..
hairstyles The hot mom-of-three calls
sc3
07-14 04:23 PM
I hope not. We dont seem to be open to another point of view. All of a sudden when the shoe is now on the other foot there is a lot of heart burn. Look up the March 2008 visa bulletin.
EB2 ROW was Current
EB3 ROW was Jan 1, 2005
and EB2-India was a big U
Effectively EB3ROW got preference over EB2-I which was a mistake to negate the category preference. This has been corrected now and I welcome the change.
Where was all this heart burn at that time. All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
The reason for this was not because of EB3ROW getting preference, it was because USCIS illegally used up entire year's quota before the congress actually authorized them to. Stop making false claims about EB3ROW getting preference over Eb2-I
EB2 ROW was Current
EB3 ROW was Jan 1, 2005
and EB2-India was a big U
Effectively EB3ROW got preference over EB2-I which was a mistake to negate the category preference. This has been corrected now and I welcome the change.
Where was all this heart burn at that time. All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
The reason for this was not because of EB3ROW getting preference, it was because USCIS illegally used up entire year's quota before the congress actually authorized them to. Stop making false claims about EB3ROW getting preference over Eb2-I
soni7007
08-06 03:23 PM
Send a PM to soni and ask, he/she gave me one.
Dear NKR, I am a "she" I did not give u a red dot..You are hilarious:)
Dear NKR, I am a "she" I did not give u a red dot..You are hilarious:)
jung.lee
04-05 06:07 PM
The analysis is interesting, but this much amount has already been written off considering 100% of option ARM, and alt-ARM will fail.
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to connect the ARM reset schedule with write-offs at wall street firms. Instead, I was trying to point out that there will be increased number of foreclosures as those ARMs reset over the next 36 months.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier this decade.
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to connect the ARM reset schedule with write-offs at wall street firms. Instead, I was trying to point out that there will be increased number of foreclosures as those ARMs reset over the next 36 months.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier this decade.
