Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
wallpaper 2010 heidi montag before and
Macaca
05-27 05:26 PM
Immigration: You can't rely on E-Verify (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-arizona-20110527,0,7225123.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that permits local officials to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. The decision makes sense in principle but not in practice.
Under the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, business owners are required to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm if a person is authorized to work in this country. Employers must electronically check workers' names against databases kept by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Workers found to be ineligible have up to eight working days to straighten out the problem before employers would be required to fire them. If a company is found to have knowingly hired an undocumented worker once, it can have its licenses suspended; twice, the company may be shut down.
The problem with the Arizona statute is not that it penalizes employers who break the law. Businesses that hire undocumented immigrants should face fines or sanctions, as called for under current federal law (although many would disagree with the court's conclusion that states may impose such penalties). The problem is that the law relies on E-Verify, which isn't ready for prime time.
Until now, E-Verify has generally been used on a voluntary basis by employers because of concerns about its accuracy. Conservative estimates put the program's error rate at just under 1% � meaning that one out of every 100 legal job applicants could be found ineligible to work. Nearly half of those will not be able to fix the problem even though they are citizens or legal workers, according to the National Immigration Law Center. The reality is that the error rate may be much higher. Consider that in 2008, Intel Corp. reported that just over 12% of its workers were wrongly tagged as ineligible, according to the Migration Policy Center in Washington. Or that a survey by Los Angeles County of employees found an error rate of 2.7 in 2008 and 2.0 in 2009, according to a report submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The error rate is especially high in cities with large immigrant communities.
Furthermore, E-Verify doesn't detect identity theft or prevent unscrupulous employers from moving their workforce off the books. Nor does the law guarantee employers that they will be immune from losing their licenses if E-Verify mistakenly allows them to hire an undocumented worker. That lack of protection may, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted in his dissent, persuade some business owners to avoid hiring those who look or sound foreign-born.
At the very least, the court's ruling should prompt the Obama administration to act quickly to fix E-Verify and improve its accuracy. And the White House should seek a qualified candidate to serve as the Justice Department's special counsel in charge of enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration law.
But the court's ruling doesn't fix the bigger problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Arizona and other states that have passed similar measures are stumbling to create their own immigration laws because the current system isn't working. Thursday's decision should put Washington on notice that in the absence of a federal solution, states will step in to fill the void.
D.C. region�s Asian population is up 60 percent since 2000, census data show (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-regions-asian-population-is-up-60-percent-since-2000-census-data-show/2011/05/25/AGvgndBH_story.html) By Carol Morello and Dan Keating | The Washington Post
A Bond for the Homeland (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/24/a_bond_for_the_homeland) By NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA, DILIP RATHA | Foreign Policy
More People, Please
Don't worry about the booming global population -- celebrate it. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/23/more_people_please)
By | Foreign Policy
How Latinos Got Stung (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/22/how_latinos_got_stung_109943.html) By Ruben Navarrette | Denver Post
What immigrants contribute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-immigrants-contribute/2011/05/19/AFjy9L9G_story.html) By Alejandro Becerra | The Washington Post
Secure Communities program: A flawed deportation tool (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secure-20110523,0,4886580.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that permits local officials to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. The decision makes sense in principle but not in practice.
Under the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, business owners are required to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm if a person is authorized to work in this country. Employers must electronically check workers' names against databases kept by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Workers found to be ineligible have up to eight working days to straighten out the problem before employers would be required to fire them. If a company is found to have knowingly hired an undocumented worker once, it can have its licenses suspended; twice, the company may be shut down.
The problem with the Arizona statute is not that it penalizes employers who break the law. Businesses that hire undocumented immigrants should face fines or sanctions, as called for under current federal law (although many would disagree with the court's conclusion that states may impose such penalties). The problem is that the law relies on E-Verify, which isn't ready for prime time.
Until now, E-Verify has generally been used on a voluntary basis by employers because of concerns about its accuracy. Conservative estimates put the program's error rate at just under 1% � meaning that one out of every 100 legal job applicants could be found ineligible to work. Nearly half of those will not be able to fix the problem even though they are citizens or legal workers, according to the National Immigration Law Center. The reality is that the error rate may be much higher. Consider that in 2008, Intel Corp. reported that just over 12% of its workers were wrongly tagged as ineligible, according to the Migration Policy Center in Washington. Or that a survey by Los Angeles County of employees found an error rate of 2.7 in 2008 and 2.0 in 2009, according to a report submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The error rate is especially high in cities with large immigrant communities.
Furthermore, E-Verify doesn't detect identity theft or prevent unscrupulous employers from moving their workforce off the books. Nor does the law guarantee employers that they will be immune from losing their licenses if E-Verify mistakenly allows them to hire an undocumented worker. That lack of protection may, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted in his dissent, persuade some business owners to avoid hiring those who look or sound foreign-born.
At the very least, the court's ruling should prompt the Obama administration to act quickly to fix E-Verify and improve its accuracy. And the White House should seek a qualified candidate to serve as the Justice Department's special counsel in charge of enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration law.
But the court's ruling doesn't fix the bigger problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Arizona and other states that have passed similar measures are stumbling to create their own immigration laws because the current system isn't working. Thursday's decision should put Washington on notice that in the absence of a federal solution, states will step in to fill the void.
D.C. region�s Asian population is up 60 percent since 2000, census data show (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-regions-asian-population-is-up-60-percent-since-2000-census-data-show/2011/05/25/AGvgndBH_story.html) By Carol Morello and Dan Keating | The Washington Post
A Bond for the Homeland (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/24/a_bond_for_the_homeland) By NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA, DILIP RATHA | Foreign Policy
More People, Please
Don't worry about the booming global population -- celebrate it. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/23/more_people_please)
By | Foreign Policy
How Latinos Got Stung (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/22/how_latinos_got_stung_109943.html) By Ruben Navarrette | Denver Post
What immigrants contribute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-immigrants-contribute/2011/05/19/AFjy9L9G_story.html) By Alejandro Becerra | The Washington Post
Secure Communities program: A flawed deportation tool (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secure-20110523,0,4886580.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
alterego
07-14 04:32 AM
Why are you so worried about this initiative. Do you think an official at USCIS will read a letter and change the process in one day. If you think so then i wish you had written a letter during the letter campaign, we needed someone with your 'positive' attitude. I have sent letters to everybodies uncle and this is my 8th year waiting in EB3 and 12th year in US. Give us a chance to express our thoughts and wallow in our black hole.
We as EB3 feel that we got a raw deal due to a change in the intrepretation of a law. There is nothing wrong in sending a letter to express our opinion.
You can send a letter to thank USCIS for helping EB2 and the fact that you have an MS and that makes you great etc...(isnt this what every other post says, disregarding the fact that EB3's have people from top US universities too, there top universities around the world. I guess that you guys or the USCIS thinks that 5yrs consultancy at desi bodyshop with manufactured resume = 2yrs MS at Yale). Nothing against you, let us post a simple letter and get on with our miserable lives.
That is exactly it. This letter sounds desperate. Not exactly a recipe for success. Merely a shot in the wind, with no plan, and it is directed at someone with no power to legislate. Additionally, a few people mention they want to make him aware of this situation. Don't you think as someone who sets the PDs monthly he is aware of it already? He testified in front of congress recently about it.
Getting the interpretation of the law changed is not going to happen especially after they changed their interpretation recently with congressional input.
It is entirely up to the employer (except EB1OR and EB2NIW which are self petitioned) to file in a particular category. It should be based on the job description. If someone feels their job was EB2 qualified but their employer filed only in EB3, then they could consider moving jobs. Once the 140 is processed, the law allows a retention of PD across EB categories which to my mind is fairly generous.
This letter cannot achieve anything, it in no way helps with the visa recapture. That is the only thing that helps everyone EB2, EB3 and EB3ROW. Visa recapture has a moral argument that is stronger ie. the Gov't agency involved did not process efficiently and wasted numbers while there were immense backlogs and it was the intent of congress to approve 140K visas a year in EB immigration so lets redress this...........
This letter is certain to cause a distraction for all and lead to internecine warfare between EB categories. EB2I will most likely have a retrogression again in the Oct, bulletin and we will be back to the old scenario.
Additionally, after 7 pages, I have not seen a single post explain to me how either spillover method ie previous vertical or newer horizontal spillover will help EB3I. Either way has to go through the gate of Eb2I and C. One can argue that since they had the wrong interpretation of spillover for nearly 2 yrs, those visas should be redirected in favor of EB2 I and C.
Ultimately this is not the type of solution we need to our issue. We need to overall pie to be bigger.
We as EB3 feel that we got a raw deal due to a change in the intrepretation of a law. There is nothing wrong in sending a letter to express our opinion.
You can send a letter to thank USCIS for helping EB2 and the fact that you have an MS and that makes you great etc...(isnt this what every other post says, disregarding the fact that EB3's have people from top US universities too, there top universities around the world. I guess that you guys or the USCIS thinks that 5yrs consultancy at desi bodyshop with manufactured resume = 2yrs MS at Yale). Nothing against you, let us post a simple letter and get on with our miserable lives.
That is exactly it. This letter sounds desperate. Not exactly a recipe for success. Merely a shot in the wind, with no plan, and it is directed at someone with no power to legislate. Additionally, a few people mention they want to make him aware of this situation. Don't you think as someone who sets the PDs monthly he is aware of it already? He testified in front of congress recently about it.
Getting the interpretation of the law changed is not going to happen especially after they changed their interpretation recently with congressional input.
It is entirely up to the employer (except EB1OR and EB2NIW which are self petitioned) to file in a particular category. It should be based on the job description. If someone feels their job was EB2 qualified but their employer filed only in EB3, then they could consider moving jobs. Once the 140 is processed, the law allows a retention of PD across EB categories which to my mind is fairly generous.
This letter cannot achieve anything, it in no way helps with the visa recapture. That is the only thing that helps everyone EB2, EB3 and EB3ROW. Visa recapture has a moral argument that is stronger ie. the Gov't agency involved did not process efficiently and wasted numbers while there were immense backlogs and it was the intent of congress to approve 140K visas a year in EB immigration so lets redress this...........
This letter is certain to cause a distraction for all and lead to internecine warfare between EB categories. EB2I will most likely have a retrogression again in the Oct, bulletin and we will be back to the old scenario.
Additionally, after 7 pages, I have not seen a single post explain to me how either spillover method ie previous vertical or newer horizontal spillover will help EB3I. Either way has to go through the gate of Eb2I and C. One can argue that since they had the wrong interpretation of spillover for nearly 2 yrs, those visas should be redirected in favor of EB2 I and C.
Ultimately this is not the type of solution we need to our issue. We need to overall pie to be bigger.
2011 girlfriend heidi montag before
chanduv23
03-24 10:55 AM
A lot of the list and questions that you are being asked is what department of labor asks when they are investigating possible h-1b violations. What they have asked you is usually in those types of investigations.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
more...
nojoke
06-26 04:35 PM
I don't know what else to tell you except what I've already stated. Frankly I am surprised that this debate has gone beyond 1 page. I am tired of beating a dead horse.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
All your calculations are meaningless if the house price keeps going down 20% like the past few years. We will reach a point where the house price crash stops and starts to stabilize. That point is couple of years away. Until then, we can ignore the rent vs mortgage calculations.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
All your calculations are meaningless if the house price keeps going down 20% like the past few years. We will reach a point where the house price crash stops and starts to stabilize. That point is couple of years away. Until then, we can ignore the rent vs mortgage calculations.
mbawa2574
03-25 11:18 PM
www.ushomeauction.com
U should look more at Pre-forclosure ( if u can get hold of one) than the foreclosed properties. Most of forclosed properties need substantial investment to fix them. Generally public gets the last chance of good foreclosed properties. It is a bank- real estate nexus which eats up the good inventory before hitting into the market. US home auction is not a real auction but more like a open house for 100 properties at the same time. Quality of inventory is not worth it.
U should look more at Pre-forclosure ( if u can get hold of one) than the foreclosed properties. Most of forclosed properties need substantial investment to fix them. Generally public gets the last chance of good foreclosed properties. It is a bank- real estate nexus which eats up the good inventory before hitting into the market. US home auction is not a real auction but more like a open house for 100 properties at the same time. Quality of inventory is not worth it.
more...
xyzgc
12-28 12:35 AM
As much as terrorism is an evil thing, surgical strikes and stuff won't do crap. It will further alienate and give fodder to the mullahs to create more Kasab's. Really, do you think we can stop 20 yr old guys who are willing to kill themselves, think again? These guys are just washed out completely, there is no retribution, pain, all they see is a target and blow themselves out.
Instead, we should concentrate on the war within that we face. Be it from communal/political/socio-economic violence or lack of regard for the common man's life. By no means I am saying inaction but war is certainly not the solution. Pakistan will meet its fate sooner than later if they continue the path they have chosen. We don't have to hasten it.
200 Indians dying is painful but look at these figures to put things into perspective.
Accidents in India:
http://morth.nic.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/table-6408184011.htm
AIDS
http://www.avert.org/indiaaids.htm
Infant Mortality:
http://www.indexmundi.com/India/infant_mortality_rate.html
Rapes
http://keralaonline.com/news/india-ranks-rape-cases_12144.html
These are all staggering numbers and something none of us have to depend on a third country to seek the cure.
I hope India continues to apply diplomatic pressure and show the world the parasite Pakistan it has become. As Zardari today acknowledged, they have a cancer within the country, its eating up. If they don't, its just a matter of time. To cure that, if they find mullahs as their doctors, time will be up pretty soon..
Do you mean we should spend the $26 billion on defence budgets (yearly) just to make hollow noises and allow terrorists to run amok in our cities and attack our senate?How many years your folks in India have paid taxes to the central govt? Have you tracked the tax money that goes out of your family's pockets?
Or are you saying that we should donate our arsenal to Pakistan and stop spending on defence, henceforth?
Children are blinded to make beggars in Bombay, women get raped in Delhi, sex workers have AIDS all over the metros, so you are saying we should divert all our defence budgets towards humanitarian causes?
Why don't you suggest this to Honorable Mr. Manmohan Singh and Honorable P Chidambaram and see if your Utopian proposal will be ever accepted?
Instead, we should concentrate on the war within that we face. Be it from communal/political/socio-economic violence or lack of regard for the common man's life. By no means I am saying inaction but war is certainly not the solution. Pakistan will meet its fate sooner than later if they continue the path they have chosen. We don't have to hasten it.
200 Indians dying is painful but look at these figures to put things into perspective.
Accidents in India:
http://morth.nic.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/table-6408184011.htm
AIDS
http://www.avert.org/indiaaids.htm
Infant Mortality:
http://www.indexmundi.com/India/infant_mortality_rate.html
Rapes
http://keralaonline.com/news/india-ranks-rape-cases_12144.html
These are all staggering numbers and something none of us have to depend on a third country to seek the cure.
I hope India continues to apply diplomatic pressure and show the world the parasite Pakistan it has become. As Zardari today acknowledged, they have a cancer within the country, its eating up. If they don't, its just a matter of time. To cure that, if they find mullahs as their doctors, time will be up pretty soon..
Do you mean we should spend the $26 billion on defence budgets (yearly) just to make hollow noises and allow terrorists to run amok in our cities and attack our senate?How many years your folks in India have paid taxes to the central govt? Have you tracked the tax money that goes out of your family's pockets?
Or are you saying that we should donate our arsenal to Pakistan and stop spending on defence, henceforth?
Children are blinded to make beggars in Bombay, women get raped in Delhi, sex workers have AIDS all over the metros, so you are saying we should divert all our defence budgets towards humanitarian causes?
Why don't you suggest this to Honorable Mr. Manmohan Singh and Honorable P Chidambaram and see if your Utopian proposal will be ever accepted?
2010 heidi montag before and after
Macaca
12-30 06:57 PM
A Bridge to a Love for Democracy (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/us/30iht-letter30.html) By RICHARD BERNSTEIN | New York Times
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
more...
Macaca
08-08 09:19 PM
A Shameless Congress Applauds `Ethics' Law (http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aSwNPAuJbnbU) By Margaret Carlson (mcarlson3@bloomberg.net), August 8, 2007
To much fanfare and self-congratulation, the U.S. Congress passed ethics legislation last week supposedly making the members subject to the same standards of behavior the rest of us live by.
At almost the same time, a federal court handed down a decision involving a congressman whose office was raided by the FBI last year as part of a bribery case that included the earlier discovery of $90,000 he stashed in his home freezer. The ruling reminds us how much more Washington is like Vegas than Peoria. Under the Constitution, a congressman can protect his legislative files from being searched. In other words, what happens in your Capitol Hill office stays in your Capitol Hill office.
The ruling came in the matter of Representative William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat indicted for bribery in June. Jefferson allegedly got the $90,000 from a telecommunications entrepreneur who enlisted his help in getting approval from a Nigerian official to do business in that country.
The court didn't buy that the Justice Department did everything it could during the search to shield privileged documents, short of letting Jefferson conduct his own raid. A ``filter team'' removed any material that smacked of Jefferson's legislative duties. The court found the effort insufficient ``to protect the privilege'' of the legislative branch to be free from intrusions by the executive branch.
Shielding Lawbreakers
This means that under the principle of shielding lawmakers, lawbreakers may be shielded from legitimate law enforcement. Jefferson's lawyer Robert Trout was thrilled, saying the decision shows that every member of Congress has an ``absolute right to review his records first and shield legislative material from review.'' Federal agents get to see what's left.
Jefferson must be kicking himself. Why didn't he think to take the loot out of the freezer in his home and disperse it among the files labeled ``congressional bills'' at his office?
Consider the possibilities. Yes, it would have been hard for former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, now in prison, to keep his Louis XIV commode hidden in his office. But he could have easily stuffed any records about goodies provided by his defense contractor pals, such as the lease for his yacht ``Duke-Stir,'' into a file drawer labeled ``Hearings.''
Like the Jefferson affair, the case of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska could give a whole new meaning to the phrase Capitol Hideaway. Stevens's house in Alaska was raided last week by the FBI and Internal Revenue Service as part of a broad corruption probe. Stevens has multiple ties to businessman Bill Allen, who, since pleading guilty to bribery in May, is said to be singing like an Arctic loon.
If Only He'd Known
With the court's ruling, Stevens could have shipped anything he didn't want to be discovered to the Hart Senate Office Building for safekeeping.
Stevens and Jefferson are just two of at least a dozen members of Congress under investigation, which puts increasing pressure on the lawmakers to do something about corruption. That something, unfortunately, has loopholes large enough for a Gulfstream V to fly through.
The ethics legislation allows members to do all kinds of things -- as long as they disclose them. Want to have a fat cat contributor? Just make sure he discloses that he's bundling donations from friends, clients and employees.
Don't want to give up earmarks? You can still shoehorn an appropriation for millions of dollars onto an unrelated piece of legislation as long as you put your name on it.
`Bridge to Nowhere'
The law would have done nothing to stop Stevens from getting his ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a quarter-mile span connecting an Alaskan town to an island of 50 people, a couple of years ago.
Gifts and free travel are banned, unless they are part of campaigning. In other words, Congressman A can't have a rare rib-eye, creamed spinach and a bottle of Merlot with Businessman B at the Palm unless it's in conjunction with fundraising. In the case of congressional ethics, two wrongs do make a right.
The reason disclosure no longer works as a deterrent is that shame no longer works. As the ethics legislation was rolling to passage, Stevens, at a private luncheon with Republican colleagues, threatened to hold the whole thing up if the ban on traveling on corporate aircraft wasn't removed. He will still be able to fly Air Lobbyist. He'll just have to pay for it at commercial charter rates.
In wanting to keep his perks, Stevens may be the most outspoken member, but he's, by no means, alone. ``Ethics'' is the one area in Congress where there is heartwarming bipartisanship.
`Culture of Corruption'
Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and Democrat Thomas Foley filed legal briefs in support of Jefferson. When the court said the search was unlawful, Speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded. Earlier, Pelosi, who once pledged to end the Republican ``culture of corruption,'' took away Jefferson's coveted seat on the House Ways and Means Committee after the FBI raid on his office only to try to award him a coveted seat on the homeland security panel.
Some legislation is worse than no legislation. Senator John McCain, showing again why he'll never be president, said the ethics bill will delude voters into thinking things have been fixed when they haven't.
``This will continue the earmarking and pork barrel projects,'' the Arizona Republican said. ``Again, the American people will have been deceived.''
Most of the other members are chest-thumping as if they've really done something. The public would be better off if Congress had to live by the laws that apply to everyone else, criminal and civil, and at least a few of the Ten Commandments. I'd start with thou shalt not steal -- and work from there.
To much fanfare and self-congratulation, the U.S. Congress passed ethics legislation last week supposedly making the members subject to the same standards of behavior the rest of us live by.
At almost the same time, a federal court handed down a decision involving a congressman whose office was raided by the FBI last year as part of a bribery case that included the earlier discovery of $90,000 he stashed in his home freezer. The ruling reminds us how much more Washington is like Vegas than Peoria. Under the Constitution, a congressman can protect his legislative files from being searched. In other words, what happens in your Capitol Hill office stays in your Capitol Hill office.
The ruling came in the matter of Representative William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat indicted for bribery in June. Jefferson allegedly got the $90,000 from a telecommunications entrepreneur who enlisted his help in getting approval from a Nigerian official to do business in that country.
The court didn't buy that the Justice Department did everything it could during the search to shield privileged documents, short of letting Jefferson conduct his own raid. A ``filter team'' removed any material that smacked of Jefferson's legislative duties. The court found the effort insufficient ``to protect the privilege'' of the legislative branch to be free from intrusions by the executive branch.
Shielding Lawbreakers
This means that under the principle of shielding lawmakers, lawbreakers may be shielded from legitimate law enforcement. Jefferson's lawyer Robert Trout was thrilled, saying the decision shows that every member of Congress has an ``absolute right to review his records first and shield legislative material from review.'' Federal agents get to see what's left.
Jefferson must be kicking himself. Why didn't he think to take the loot out of the freezer in his home and disperse it among the files labeled ``congressional bills'' at his office?
Consider the possibilities. Yes, it would have been hard for former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, now in prison, to keep his Louis XIV commode hidden in his office. But he could have easily stuffed any records about goodies provided by his defense contractor pals, such as the lease for his yacht ``Duke-Stir,'' into a file drawer labeled ``Hearings.''
Like the Jefferson affair, the case of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska could give a whole new meaning to the phrase Capitol Hideaway. Stevens's house in Alaska was raided last week by the FBI and Internal Revenue Service as part of a broad corruption probe. Stevens has multiple ties to businessman Bill Allen, who, since pleading guilty to bribery in May, is said to be singing like an Arctic loon.
If Only He'd Known
With the court's ruling, Stevens could have shipped anything he didn't want to be discovered to the Hart Senate Office Building for safekeeping.
Stevens and Jefferson are just two of at least a dozen members of Congress under investigation, which puts increasing pressure on the lawmakers to do something about corruption. That something, unfortunately, has loopholes large enough for a Gulfstream V to fly through.
The ethics legislation allows members to do all kinds of things -- as long as they disclose them. Want to have a fat cat contributor? Just make sure he discloses that he's bundling donations from friends, clients and employees.
Don't want to give up earmarks? You can still shoehorn an appropriation for millions of dollars onto an unrelated piece of legislation as long as you put your name on it.
`Bridge to Nowhere'
The law would have done nothing to stop Stevens from getting his ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a quarter-mile span connecting an Alaskan town to an island of 50 people, a couple of years ago.
Gifts and free travel are banned, unless they are part of campaigning. In other words, Congressman A can't have a rare rib-eye, creamed spinach and a bottle of Merlot with Businessman B at the Palm unless it's in conjunction with fundraising. In the case of congressional ethics, two wrongs do make a right.
The reason disclosure no longer works as a deterrent is that shame no longer works. As the ethics legislation was rolling to passage, Stevens, at a private luncheon with Republican colleagues, threatened to hold the whole thing up if the ban on traveling on corporate aircraft wasn't removed. He will still be able to fly Air Lobbyist. He'll just have to pay for it at commercial charter rates.
In wanting to keep his perks, Stevens may be the most outspoken member, but he's, by no means, alone. ``Ethics'' is the one area in Congress where there is heartwarming bipartisanship.
`Culture of Corruption'
Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and Democrat Thomas Foley filed legal briefs in support of Jefferson. When the court said the search was unlawful, Speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded. Earlier, Pelosi, who once pledged to end the Republican ``culture of corruption,'' took away Jefferson's coveted seat on the House Ways and Means Committee after the FBI raid on his office only to try to award him a coveted seat on the homeland security panel.
Some legislation is worse than no legislation. Senator John McCain, showing again why he'll never be president, said the ethics bill will delude voters into thinking things have been fixed when they haven't.
``This will continue the earmarking and pork barrel projects,'' the Arizona Republican said. ``Again, the American people will have been deceived.''
Most of the other members are chest-thumping as if they've really done something. The public would be better off if Congress had to live by the laws that apply to everyone else, criminal and civil, and at least a few of the Ten Commandments. I'd start with thou shalt not steal -- and work from there.
hair 2010 hairstyles Heidi montag
texcan
08-26 07:58 PM
A few nice kavitas by Dr. Kumar Viswas.
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY)
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY)
more...
unitednations
07-17 12:39 PM
Unitednations,
Could you provide me your contact info so that we can talk / email in person.
My email id is jeyvee72@hotmail.com.
Thanks
Tom
Tom; I'm sorry but I used to have my contact info on immigration.com and I enjoyed talking to people at one point. However; it got to be too much to discuss with people (close to 100 phone calls per day).
I prefer if you keep it to the boards for everyone elses benefit.
Could you provide me your contact info so that we can talk / email in person.
My email id is jeyvee72@hotmail.com.
Thanks
Tom
Tom; I'm sorry but I used to have my contact info on immigration.com and I enjoyed talking to people at one point. However; it got to be too much to discuss with people (close to 100 phone calls per day).
I prefer if you keep it to the boards for everyone elses benefit.
hot 2010 Heidi Montag Before and
lfwf
08-05 07:03 PM
I have seen you post before, and with this post you lost some of my respect. You need to be rational and coherent if you want to debate the issue. Not emotional and silly.
Come on!, give me a break. You guys are now worried that EB3 will spoil your (what I still consider, ill gotten) party by PD porting. You now come up with arguments about what is EB2.
If EB2 is ill gotten, so is EB3. Lets all go home? Personally I am not in IT so if all IT is so fraudulent, I'm happy to see you all leave and finally get my GC :-)
First argument: "EB2 requires advanced degree"
If that is the case, there is no one who is eligible for Eb2, as "Advanced degrees" is not a degree that is offered by any university in US. Mostly the ones I know offer, Masters and PHD and likes. No one says I am offering "advanced degree". ;)
Further more, advanced degree is subjective. Bachelors is advanced compared to Diploma, which is advanced compared to 10th passed, which is advanced compared someone who failed 10th.
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. In the US the Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree for thsoe that attend regular college. Anything above that is treated as "advanced". This rgument makes you truly truly look quite farcical.
Second: It is not fair to allow EB3s to port.
It is in the law. that part is not grounds for a lawsuit. If you still want to complain, then complain about the fact that AC21 allows you to jump jobs without even getting your GC.
The law allows porting. the difinition of "equivelant' in work experience comes from a regulation/memo. Do some reasrch before posting.
Third (these are my own points)
When people got their F1, they said there are here without immigrant intention. Why is USCIS giving them H1 and then also accepting GCs for them. Come to think of it, OPT is not required by any university for granting the degree, so why are F1s even allowed to work??
Are you drunk today? When you get an F1 you have "non immigrant intent". the law recognizes that you can "change intent". If you tried getting an H1 or GC within 6 mnths of entering on a F1, USCIS would create a huge problem for you. This is also the basis for the ability to chnage jobs after a GC. that you can change your "intent" after a reasonable time. otherwise the Gc would be worthless.
The point I am trying to make is that if you try to open one can of worms, everyone else has a Costo or a Sams club to go to and buy a boat load of cans of worms to open - that is going to put you in a bad situation.
I have no cans of worms. I have "very advanced" degress and a job that no bachelors could ever do, even with 100 years experience - and that is by law.
So I don't care for such arguments. You sound very scared on the other hand. What are you hiding?
If I read correctly, every EB3 here thinks that most EB2 is fraud. Sounds like Numbers USA and PG talk to me. I'd like to remind you that thsoe folks whose language you are now talking, are even more opposed to EB3. take some time and read what they have to say about EB3 in the context of "best and brightest". I suggest seriously thinking before posting.
Come on!, give me a break. You guys are now worried that EB3 will spoil your (what I still consider, ill gotten) party by PD porting. You now come up with arguments about what is EB2.
If EB2 is ill gotten, so is EB3. Lets all go home? Personally I am not in IT so if all IT is so fraudulent, I'm happy to see you all leave and finally get my GC :-)
First argument: "EB2 requires advanced degree"
If that is the case, there is no one who is eligible for Eb2, as "Advanced degrees" is not a degree that is offered by any university in US. Mostly the ones I know offer, Masters and PHD and likes. No one says I am offering "advanced degree". ;)
Further more, advanced degree is subjective. Bachelors is advanced compared to Diploma, which is advanced compared to 10th passed, which is advanced compared someone who failed 10th.
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. In the US the Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree for thsoe that attend regular college. Anything above that is treated as "advanced". This rgument makes you truly truly look quite farcical.
Second: It is not fair to allow EB3s to port.
It is in the law. that part is not grounds for a lawsuit. If you still want to complain, then complain about the fact that AC21 allows you to jump jobs without even getting your GC.
The law allows porting. the difinition of "equivelant' in work experience comes from a regulation/memo. Do some reasrch before posting.
Third (these are my own points)
When people got their F1, they said there are here without immigrant intention. Why is USCIS giving them H1 and then also accepting GCs for them. Come to think of it, OPT is not required by any university for granting the degree, so why are F1s even allowed to work??
Are you drunk today? When you get an F1 you have "non immigrant intent". the law recognizes that you can "change intent". If you tried getting an H1 or GC within 6 mnths of entering on a F1, USCIS would create a huge problem for you. This is also the basis for the ability to chnage jobs after a GC. that you can change your "intent" after a reasonable time. otherwise the Gc would be worthless.
The point I am trying to make is that if you try to open one can of worms, everyone else has a Costo or a Sams club to go to and buy a boat load of cans of worms to open - that is going to put you in a bad situation.
I have no cans of worms. I have "very advanced" degress and a job that no bachelors could ever do, even with 100 years experience - and that is by law.
So I don't care for such arguments. You sound very scared on the other hand. What are you hiding?
If I read correctly, every EB3 here thinks that most EB2 is fraud. Sounds like Numbers USA and PG talk to me. I'd like to remind you that thsoe folks whose language you are now talking, are even more opposed to EB3. take some time and read what they have to say about EB3 in the context of "best and brightest". I suggest seriously thinking before posting.
more...
house heidi montag before and after
unseenguy
06-20 04:10 PM
Hello Hiralal,
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
I would agree if rent = monthly payment, then buying would make sense. On the west coast ca/or/wa, the rent where i live is 1500 (2b 2b), however; when I buy a house , I want a 4br so that I am in for rest of my life. Those houses are 550K, with monthly payment of 2700 usd per month. Does not make sense to go for it at the moment
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
I would agree if rent = monthly payment, then buying would make sense. On the west coast ca/or/wa, the rent where i live is 1500 (2b 2b), however; when I buy a house , I want a 4br so that I am in for rest of my life. Those houses are 550K, with monthly payment of 2700 usd per month. Does not make sense to go for it at the moment
tattoo 2010 hair surgery, Heidi
apt29
08-05 03:14 PM
The whole notion of EB2/EB3 was introduced before bigtime arrival of IT industry. In IT, the difference in job requriements between the EB2 and EB3 are thin and vague. Hence the confusion. It is possible that some EB3 folks applied, so there was risk of denial at that time(1998-2003) even with BS+5 years experience and IT industry is just catching up. So a lot folks, who waited to applied later (2004-) went for EB2.
more...
pictures 2010 heidi montag before and
gc03
05-17 10:56 AM
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Read on full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
Should we thank CNN Writer Lou Dobbs?
Read on full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
Should we thank CNN Writer Lou Dobbs?
dresses heidi montag before and after
javadeveloper
08-03 08:58 PM
Hi Unitednations,
My last entry into US is 15th Dec 2003 and I have around 200 days without my payslips and my w2 for 2004 also shows less amount.I applied my 485 in July 2007 , what are the chances for my 485 approval.Please suggest me , are there any options left for me ??
Thanks in advance
My last entry into US is 15th Dec 2003 and I have around 200 days without my payslips and my w2 for 2004 also shows less amount.I applied my 485 in July 2007 , what are the chances for my 485 approval.Please suggest me , are there any options left for me ??
Thanks in advance
more...
makeup house heidi montag before and
soni7007
08-06 04:01 PM
Yes, i agree that it is unpredictable and no one can guarantee as to which one will move faster.
But, it can go either way, may be 2002 EB3 goes current before 2005 Eb2 or vice-versa. Atleast they will have an equal chance and position. However, in the other case, when u allow porting, then A (EB3, PD 2002) will be strictly ahead of B (EB2, PD 2005)
According to you A acquires skills over a period of time and so does a person who went for higher education and is EB2. You also say that if there was no porting, A has a PD of 2002 (in EB3) and B has a PD of 2005 (in EB2), then they are almost in the same position.
At this point both of us agree that A and B are equal, right?
If they both are EQUAL, then can you guarantee that both PDs will move at the same rate?. If A�s PD becomes unavailable and B�s become current. B will get GC faster than A even though both were equal (from your logic). Is this fair, then?
But, it can go either way, may be 2002 EB3 goes current before 2005 Eb2 or vice-versa. Atleast they will have an equal chance and position. However, in the other case, when u allow porting, then A (EB3, PD 2002) will be strictly ahead of B (EB2, PD 2005)
According to you A acquires skills over a period of time and so does a person who went for higher education and is EB2. You also say that if there was no porting, A has a PD of 2002 (in EB3) and B has a PD of 2005 (in EB2), then they are almost in the same position.
At this point both of us agree that A and B are equal, right?
If they both are EQUAL, then can you guarantee that both PDs will move at the same rate?. If A�s PD becomes unavailable and B�s become current. B will get GC faster than A even though both were equal (from your logic). Is this fair, then?
girlfriend Heidi Montag Before and After
chanduv23
03-25 02:11 PM
If he indeed was affiliated with the USCIS, I would want to hear his take on this even more. We are trying to understand what can and cannot be done in terms of self employment while on AOS and who better to answer this, than a USCIS representative.
No one is trying to break the rules, just trying to understand what the rules are so they aren't unknowingly broken.
And I know you were just joking, tee hee.
Ok, in all seriousness - I used to confront with UN on Rajiv Khanna forums thinking that he is talking crap. But I later realized that he always tries to explain to you the other side of things and how perspectives differ.
Back home - people think h1b visa is a gateway to USA. A lot of people think flight ticket, boarding pass, visa , passport everything in the same range.
Before my wife came to US - someone told her - if she completes all USMLE successfully her status automatically changes from h4 to h1 - thats how people are there
Once people come here perspective changes.
Now among us, we share common ground so have same perspective - and thats what UN is trying to say - think from the other side. Look at the perspective from other side.
No one is trying to break the rules, just trying to understand what the rules are so they aren't unknowingly broken.
And I know you were just joking, tee hee.
Ok, in all seriousness - I used to confront with UN on Rajiv Khanna forums thinking that he is talking crap. But I later realized that he always tries to explain to you the other side of things and how perspectives differ.
Back home - people think h1b visa is a gateway to USA. A lot of people think flight ticket, boarding pass, visa , passport everything in the same range.
Before my wife came to US - someone told her - if she completes all USMLE successfully her status automatically changes from h4 to h1 - thats how people are there
Once people come here perspective changes.
Now among us, we share common ground so have same perspective - and thats what UN is trying to say - think from the other side. Look at the perspective from other side.
hairstyles 2010 before and after
axp817
03-25 09:10 AM
When United Nations talks, I listen.
And learn.
I'll go back to listening now.
Thanks,
And learn.
I'll go back to listening now.
Thanks,
somegchuh
03-25 02:53 PM
Ss it really "Rent Apartment vs Buy House" ?
How about renting a home to provide something good to your family?
With the home values declining I think it makes way more sense to rent the same house (at least in the area I live). If your mortgage payment is only $500 above apartment rent I would say buy. But if you are looking at paying double as mortgage I think its really inflated.
I would like to read more about buying foreclosed properties. I hear there are some good deals out there :D
When you sell, you need to pay 3% as commission to both the seller and buyer agent. You will break even as soon as the house appreciates 6% plus your closing costs, anything above that would be your profit.
Now with the market going down, my guess as to when the house appreciates is as good as anybody else�s.
As far as Rent vs Mortgage goes, I would go with owning a house and paying mortgage than being on rent, I just cannot live in an apartment anymore. Caring for aging parents is our duty and responsibility as much as providing a decent home to our children and giving them a life. If I can strike a balance and fulfill my duties to both, I am happy. Coming to think of it, sometimes I wonder why I did not buy the small house I am in a couple of years ago.
How about renting a home to provide something good to your family?
With the home values declining I think it makes way more sense to rent the same house (at least in the area I live). If your mortgage payment is only $500 above apartment rent I would say buy. But if you are looking at paying double as mortgage I think its really inflated.
I would like to read more about buying foreclosed properties. I hear there are some good deals out there :D
When you sell, you need to pay 3% as commission to both the seller and buyer agent. You will break even as soon as the house appreciates 6% plus your closing costs, anything above that would be your profit.
Now with the market going down, my guess as to when the house appreciates is as good as anybody else�s.
As far as Rent vs Mortgage goes, I would go with owning a house and paying mortgage than being on rent, I just cannot live in an apartment anymore. Caring for aging parents is our duty and responsibility as much as providing a decent home to our children and giving them a life. If I can strike a balance and fulfill my duties to both, I am happy. Coming to think of it, sometimes I wonder why I did not buy the small house I am in a couple of years ago.
unitednations
08-02 11:55 AM
I read this thread ONLY to not to miss any single word from US, no wonder.. his advises are indirectly helping many others like me in getting more understanding about what we are doing..
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
very good information. I just hope it isn't too late for people to put in the correct information into the forms.
I remember in my previous day job whenever there was a gray area that we were trying to exploit (could be Securities and Exchange Rules, IRS rules, etc.), all we had to do was convince ourselves and ourselves had the vested interest in getting a certain outcome. However; we always had to be ready for the next level if the regulatory bodies came asking that we had a reasonable basis for our conclusions.
Difference in most things is that the SEC and IRS do not "approve" your tax returns or financial statements. They may come and ask. However; immigration law; the onus on us is to prove that we are eligible for the benefit and have to prove it with every application. Everyone should be ready for the next level of scrutiny.
I had worked on a case where USCIS was trying to add up 20 i-140's for ability to pay and telling the company that they don't have the numbers for all those people. While we were working on this; we had to get ready for the possible outcome (ie., uscis going after the approved i-140's (44 of them) and the h-1b's. We responded to the 20 rfe's but had set it up that if uscis came asking about the others that the information we were showing in these responses would not contradict and would be sufficient if they came after the approved ones.
Well; after the rfe response; uscis did come after the approved cases and sent in the notice of intent to revoke the 44 approved cases (some were approved almost three years before). They all got re-approved but you have to be ready with all the evidence.
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
very good information. I just hope it isn't too late for people to put in the correct information into the forms.
I remember in my previous day job whenever there was a gray area that we were trying to exploit (could be Securities and Exchange Rules, IRS rules, etc.), all we had to do was convince ourselves and ourselves had the vested interest in getting a certain outcome. However; we always had to be ready for the next level if the regulatory bodies came asking that we had a reasonable basis for our conclusions.
Difference in most things is that the SEC and IRS do not "approve" your tax returns or financial statements. They may come and ask. However; immigration law; the onus on us is to prove that we are eligible for the benefit and have to prove it with every application. Everyone should be ready for the next level of scrutiny.
I had worked on a case where USCIS was trying to add up 20 i-140's for ability to pay and telling the company that they don't have the numbers for all those people. While we were working on this; we had to get ready for the possible outcome (ie., uscis going after the approved i-140's (44 of them) and the h-1b's. We responded to the 20 rfe's but had set it up that if uscis came asking about the others that the information we were showing in these responses would not contradict and would be sufficient if they came after the approved ones.
Well; after the rfe response; uscis did come after the approved cases and sent in the notice of intent to revoke the 44 approved cases (some were approved almost three years before). They all got re-approved but you have to be ready with all the evidence.
