nojoke
04-17 04:13 PM
http://dqnews.com/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay080417.aspx
It is down by 100K compared to last year. Just like I said, every year it is going to be 100K down for 2 more years.:D
It is down by 100K compared to last year. Just like I said, every year it is going to be 100K down for 2 more years.:D
wallpaper free printable meal planning
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
sc3
08-05 08:07 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.
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.
Emotional and silly? I dont think so. This thread talks about stopping a legal option available to lots. The arguments provided have no legal grounding.
Also, your claim that "in US Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree" is not supported by law (show me the law which states as such, and I will shut up). It is again subjective. There are a lot of "Associate degree" etc, so classification of "basic degree" is nothing by subjective. As I said before, what you consider "Advanced" need not be a advanced degree for another, and the law never explicitly talks about what is meant by "Advanced". It is USCIS guidance on what it considers to be "advanced degree".
The thread says we should disallow Eb3's refiling because it is unfair, I am saying jumping jobs without getting GC is unfair. Again subjective... what you consider unfair maybe very different from what I consider unfair. The law allows for both, EB3 refiling, as well as Ac21 portability. We cant do anything about it -- none of these are basis for lawsuits wants it to be.
"You have a advanced degree that no Bachelors can do... that is the law"
So now you take recourse to the law, when you support filing a lawsuit for something written in law. Furthermore, just guessing here, looks like you are in medicinal field, or something that affects human life. Well, that law is not universal. There are other countries where the same job can be done by a bachelors. To some extent such "advanced degree" requirements are put in place by lobbies, or due to some other constraints.
No, every EB3 does not think EB2 is fraud. It is EB2s that think EB3s can be done by anyone pulled off the street. Every occupation needs skills, just because someone has an advanced degree mean that all other work can be done by monkeys.
And BTW: Someone gave me a neg, saying I am disparaging EB2 by calling them Monkeys. No I did not do that, some other guys brought it on themselves when they claimed EB3 work can be done by monkeys. I just said, if EB3 work can be done by monkeys, so can EB2 work. Read before you leave comments to others.
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.
Emotional and silly? I dont think so. This thread talks about stopping a legal option available to lots. The arguments provided have no legal grounding.
Also, your claim that "in US Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree" is not supported by law (show me the law which states as such, and I will shut up). It is again subjective. There are a lot of "Associate degree" etc, so classification of "basic degree" is nothing by subjective. As I said before, what you consider "Advanced" need not be a advanced degree for another, and the law never explicitly talks about what is meant by "Advanced". It is USCIS guidance on what it considers to be "advanced degree".
The thread says we should disallow Eb3's refiling because it is unfair, I am saying jumping jobs without getting GC is unfair. Again subjective... what you consider unfair maybe very different from what I consider unfair. The law allows for both, EB3 refiling, as well as Ac21 portability. We cant do anything about it -- none of these are basis for lawsuits wants it to be.
"You have a advanced degree that no Bachelors can do... that is the law"
So now you take recourse to the law, when you support filing a lawsuit for something written in law. Furthermore, just guessing here, looks like you are in medicinal field, or something that affects human life. Well, that law is not universal. There are other countries where the same job can be done by a bachelors. To some extent such "advanced degree" requirements are put in place by lobbies, or due to some other constraints.
No, every EB3 does not think EB2 is fraud. It is EB2s that think EB3s can be done by anyone pulled off the street. Every occupation needs skills, just because someone has an advanced degree mean that all other work can be done by monkeys.
And BTW: Someone gave me a neg, saying I am disparaging EB2 by calling them Monkeys. No I did not do that, some other guys brought it on themselves when they claimed EB3 work can be done by monkeys. I just said, if EB3 work can be done by monkeys, so can EB2 work. Read before you leave comments to others.
2011 the meal planner I usually
satishku_2000
05-16 02:56 PM
I know where Senator Durbin stands on illegal immigration issue , he is totally for amnesty/legalization of illegal/undocumented people in the country. According to him its ok if someone is totally undocumented and stays here but its not ok if someone does consulting and documented and pays taxes while working and waiting for the green card to be approved. Isn't it height of hypocrosy?
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
more...
vivekm1309
12-31 11:03 AM
IV is meant to discuss Immigration issues ...Politics, International terrorism, India/Pak relations, can be discussed in some of the other forums.
waitnwatch
08-05 03:11 PM
Seems like a lot of emotions running high on this thread!
Given that the USCIS director doesn't visit IV before writing memos on interfiling and porting PD's it's meaningless getting your blood pressure up.
Rolling flood is definitely free to file his/her lawsuit whether folks here like it or not and SunnySurya has every right to join in.
Wondering why folks from EB-3 want to just move up to EB-2 and port PD. Why not go for EB-1? After all that category is current.
Given that the USCIS director doesn't visit IV before writing memos on interfiling and porting PD's it's meaningless getting your blood pressure up.
Rolling flood is definitely free to file his/her lawsuit whether folks here like it or not and SunnySurya has every right to join in.
Wondering why folks from EB-3 want to just move up to EB-2 and port PD. Why not go for EB-1? After all that category is current.
more...
JEESEE
04-01 03:20 PM
My wife got same RFE asking for her medicals to be done as we couldnt do it at the time of 485 Filing. My Wife was expecting when we went for the Medical so the Doctor didnt give her the vaccines. our PD is Oct 2006.
Some thing must be happening at USCIS side. Good.....OR.....Bad!!!! You decide.
Some thing must be happening at USCIS side. Good.....OR.....Bad!!!! You decide.
2010 printable menu planner
TomPlate
09-26 12:31 PM
I like Mccain to be the president. Based on his experience and his involvement for the country.
Also Mccain is a great candidate for us.
Also Mccain is a great candidate for us.
more...
mrane1
06-07 06:22 PM
When it comes to house or condo or town house, it is always location location and location. If you think buying a house or condo just to put on rent is foolishness and not calculated risk, I cannot argue with you to fill up pages on forum and again I don't want to give you a lesson there. Like other things in life, you have discover your own way to make money may be in renting or may be owning a store or just doing your job.
Any way, coming back to first time home buyers, it is once in lifetime opportunity to get houses in high demand areas, and if people have good solid job (or multiple income sources with working spouse) and credit, with plans to live there for atleast 3-5 years, I don't think there should be any reason not to buy it.
There has always been more land and if there wasn't more land in US, it may start occupying ocean to build houses. So I don't think there was ever in history a question whether people would occupy every inch of land. But still there was a boom and people were buying 4-5 houses when they can only afford one. Everybody knows what happened after that. But yes in Good location, there is always shortage and there is shortage right now too. Now good location is a subjectable term. You can go 40 miles off any major city and live in woods and consider it as a good location. So we have to be careful there. But yes prices are low compared to boom time and interest rates have been historically low. If the above two are not good point to take risk, then you are not in right business of taking risk.
Hey nobody can predict tomorrow. You can get hit by a bus and then who cares about money and house :).
Life life king size :) may be after 10 years your GC is denied, but then for 10 years you lived in half million dollar house and enjoyed every second of it, rather than living in one bedroom apt.
Chill out and have a good night
Living life king size is what caused this massive bubble and the repurcussions of this recession will be felt for years to come. Living beyond your means never was and will never be, a good idea. What is the point in buying a mansion and then worrying about paying the mortgage on it every month... I dont see any king size lifestyle there.
Any way, coming back to first time home buyers, it is once in lifetime opportunity to get houses in high demand areas, and if people have good solid job (or multiple income sources with working spouse) and credit, with plans to live there for atleast 3-5 years, I don't think there should be any reason not to buy it.
There has always been more land and if there wasn't more land in US, it may start occupying ocean to build houses. So I don't think there was ever in history a question whether people would occupy every inch of land. But still there was a boom and people were buying 4-5 houses when they can only afford one. Everybody knows what happened after that. But yes in Good location, there is always shortage and there is shortage right now too. Now good location is a subjectable term. You can go 40 miles off any major city and live in woods and consider it as a good location. So we have to be careful there. But yes prices are low compared to boom time and interest rates have been historically low. If the above two are not good point to take risk, then you are not in right business of taking risk.
Hey nobody can predict tomorrow. You can get hit by a bus and then who cares about money and house :).
Life life king size :) may be after 10 years your GC is denied, but then for 10 years you lived in half million dollar house and enjoyed every second of it, rather than living in one bedroom apt.
Chill out and have a good night
Living life king size is what caused this massive bubble and the repurcussions of this recession will be felt for years to come. Living beyond your means never was and will never be, a good idea. What is the point in buying a mansion and then worrying about paying the mortgage on it every month... I dont see any king size lifestyle there.
hair printable menu planner
anandrajesh
03-24 11:17 AM
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.
Its a problem when we dont speak out on our issues - nobody understands our pain
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Corporate Greed brought America down.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
Its a problem when we dont speak out on our issues - nobody understands our pain
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Corporate Greed brought America down.
more...
obviously
08-05 08:59 AM
Rolling Flood,
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA. So, it is likely that EB3 applicants might have started in one job, gained 5 or 6 years experience, a Masters degree and a few certifications etc., and then become attractive candidates for jobs that require a Masters degree ... hence being eligible for an EB2 filing. The folks reviewing EB applications didnt start yesterday and are not wet behind their ears. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF. There is no notion of 'imagined eligibility'. If that hypothesis were true, how do we know that you did not suffer from a case of 'imagined eligibility' yourself??!!
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. It is a classic case of riding the ladder of inference and using your own conclusions to make up supporting-evidence, to the contrary of reality and law.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is the EB2 category itself, not the interfiling process. That latter is a provision of law. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'? How do we know that YOUR EB2 filing was not based on 'assumed eligibility'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
I challenge you to disclose
YOUR REAL NAME
YOUR CASE NUMBER
YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME
YOUR EB2 JOB DESCRIPTION
so that the larger community can find out if there really is no eligible US person to take that job. Seriously. Want to play that game? I can give you a 100% guarantee, that you would rather fight a 'shadow cause' being the coward you are ... and wont hold yourself up to the kind of scrutiny that you wish to hold others to.
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA. So, it is likely that EB3 applicants might have started in one job, gained 5 or 6 years experience, a Masters degree and a few certifications etc., and then become attractive candidates for jobs that require a Masters degree ... hence being eligible for an EB2 filing. The folks reviewing EB applications didnt start yesterday and are not wet behind their ears. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF. There is no notion of 'imagined eligibility'. If that hypothesis were true, how do we know that you did not suffer from a case of 'imagined eligibility' yourself??!!
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. It is a classic case of riding the ladder of inference and using your own conclusions to make up supporting-evidence, to the contrary of reality and law.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is the EB2 category itself, not the interfiling process. That latter is a provision of law. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'? How do we know that YOUR EB2 filing was not based on 'assumed eligibility'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
I challenge you to disclose
YOUR REAL NAME
YOUR CASE NUMBER
YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME
YOUR EB2 JOB DESCRIPTION
so that the larger community can find out if there really is no eligible US person to take that job. Seriously. Want to play that game? I can give you a 100% guarantee, that you would rather fight a 'shadow cause' being the coward you are ... and wont hold yourself up to the kind of scrutiny that you wish to hold others to.
hot I didn#39;t make a meal plan
Macaca
02-13 09:38 AM
10 Reasons to Lobby for your cause (http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/10ReasonstoLobby.pdf) (courtesy krishna.ahd)
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do—people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
You can make a difference. It takes one person to initiate change. Gerry Jensen was a single mother struggling to raise her son in Toledo, Ohio, without the help of a workable child support system. She put an ad in a local newspaper to see if there were other moms who wanted to join her in working for change. There were. Over time, they built the Association for Child Support Enforcement, or ACES, which has helped change child support laws not just in Ohio, but across the country. One person—a single mother—made a difference.
People working together can make a difference. Families of Alzheimer’s patients working together, through the Alzheimer’s Association, convinced the government to invest resources into research for a cure. Other individuals formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving and convinced dozens of states to toughen up their drunk driving laws. As a result, the numbers of drunk driving deaths are lower. Additionally, many people find healing from tragedy by telling their stories and working to prevent it from happening to others.
People can change laws. Many of us think that ordinary individuals can’t make a difference. It is hard to change laws and policies. But it can be done. It has been done, over and over again in our history, in the face of great obstacles. People lost their lives fighting racist “Jim Crow” laws. They won. Women didn’t even have the power of the vote—as we all do today—when they started their struggle for suffrage. Our history is full of stories of people and groups that fought great odds to make great changes: child labor laws, public schools, clean air and water laws, social security.
These changes weren’t easy to achieve. Some took decades. They all took the active involvement—the lobbying—of thousands of people who felt something needed to be changed.
Lobbying is a democratic tradition. The act of telling our policymakers how to write and change our laws is at the very heart of our democratic system. It is an alternative to what has occurred in many other countries: tyranny or revolution. Lobbying has helped keep America’s democracy evolving over more than two centuries.
Lobbying helps find real solutions. Services provided directly to people in need, such as soup kitchens, emergency health clinics, and homeless shelters, are essential. But sometimes they are not enough. Many food pantries, for example, needed new laws to enable caterers and restaurants to donate excess food so the kitchens could feed more people. Family service organizations working to place abused children into safe homes needed changes in the judicial system so kids did not have to wait for years for a secure place to grow up. Through advocacy, both changes were implemented.
People thinking creatively and asking their elected officials for support can generate innovative solutions that overcome the root-cause of a problem.
Lobbying is easy. Many of us think lobbying is some mysterious rite that takes years to master. It isn’t. You can learn how to lobby—whom to call, when, what to say— in minutes. While there are a few simple reporting rules your organization needs to follow, it isn’t complicated. Countless numbers of people have learned how. Lobbying is easier and more effective when many committed people work together. One person does not have to do everything or know everything.
Policymakers need your expertise. Few institutions are closer to the real problems of people than nonprofits and community groups. They see problems first-hand. They know the needs. They see what works and what doesn’t. They can make problems real to policymakers. They care about the problems. Their passion and perspectives need to be heard. Every professional lobbyist will tell you that personal stories are powerful tools for change. People and policymakers can learn from your story.
Lobbying helps people. Some people become concerned that lobbying detracts from their mission, but quite the opposite is true. Everything that goes into a lobbying campaign—the research, the strategy planning, the phone calls and visits—will help fulfill your goal whether it be finding a curefor cancer, beautifying the local park, or helping some other cause that helps people. You may not personally provide a direct service, but through your advocacy work, you enable thousands of others to do so.
The views of local nonprofits are important. Increasingly, the federal government has been allowing local governments to decide how to spend federal money and make more decisions than in the past. This change gives local nonprofits even more responsibility to tell local policymakers what is needed and what will work. And because more decisions are being made locally, your lobbying can have an immediate, concrete impact on people in need.
Lobbying advances your cause and builds public trust. Building public trust is essential to nonprofit organizations and lobbying helps you gain it by increasing your organization’s visibility. Just as raising funds and recruiting volunteers are important to achieving your organization’s mission so is lobbying. You miss out on an important opportunity to advance your cause if you don’t think as much about relationships with local, state, and federal government.
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do—people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
You can make a difference. It takes one person to initiate change. Gerry Jensen was a single mother struggling to raise her son in Toledo, Ohio, without the help of a workable child support system. She put an ad in a local newspaper to see if there were other moms who wanted to join her in working for change. There were. Over time, they built the Association for Child Support Enforcement, or ACES, which has helped change child support laws not just in Ohio, but across the country. One person—a single mother—made a difference.
People working together can make a difference. Families of Alzheimer’s patients working together, through the Alzheimer’s Association, convinced the government to invest resources into research for a cure. Other individuals formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving and convinced dozens of states to toughen up their drunk driving laws. As a result, the numbers of drunk driving deaths are lower. Additionally, many people find healing from tragedy by telling their stories and working to prevent it from happening to others.
People can change laws. Many of us think that ordinary individuals can’t make a difference. It is hard to change laws and policies. But it can be done. It has been done, over and over again in our history, in the face of great obstacles. People lost their lives fighting racist “Jim Crow” laws. They won. Women didn’t even have the power of the vote—as we all do today—when they started their struggle for suffrage. Our history is full of stories of people and groups that fought great odds to make great changes: child labor laws, public schools, clean air and water laws, social security.
These changes weren’t easy to achieve. Some took decades. They all took the active involvement—the lobbying—of thousands of people who felt something needed to be changed.
Lobbying is a democratic tradition. The act of telling our policymakers how to write and change our laws is at the very heart of our democratic system. It is an alternative to what has occurred in many other countries: tyranny or revolution. Lobbying has helped keep America’s democracy evolving over more than two centuries.
Lobbying helps find real solutions. Services provided directly to people in need, such as soup kitchens, emergency health clinics, and homeless shelters, are essential. But sometimes they are not enough. Many food pantries, for example, needed new laws to enable caterers and restaurants to donate excess food so the kitchens could feed more people. Family service organizations working to place abused children into safe homes needed changes in the judicial system so kids did not have to wait for years for a secure place to grow up. Through advocacy, both changes were implemented.
People thinking creatively and asking their elected officials for support can generate innovative solutions that overcome the root-cause of a problem.
Lobbying is easy. Many of us think lobbying is some mysterious rite that takes years to master. It isn’t. You can learn how to lobby—whom to call, when, what to say— in minutes. While there are a few simple reporting rules your organization needs to follow, it isn’t complicated. Countless numbers of people have learned how. Lobbying is easier and more effective when many committed people work together. One person does not have to do everything or know everything.
Policymakers need your expertise. Few institutions are closer to the real problems of people than nonprofits and community groups. They see problems first-hand. They know the needs. They see what works and what doesn’t. They can make problems real to policymakers. They care about the problems. Their passion and perspectives need to be heard. Every professional lobbyist will tell you that personal stories are powerful tools for change. People and policymakers can learn from your story.
Lobbying helps people. Some people become concerned that lobbying detracts from their mission, but quite the opposite is true. Everything that goes into a lobbying campaign—the research, the strategy planning, the phone calls and visits—will help fulfill your goal whether it be finding a curefor cancer, beautifying the local park, or helping some other cause that helps people. You may not personally provide a direct service, but through your advocacy work, you enable thousands of others to do so.
The views of local nonprofits are important. Increasingly, the federal government has been allowing local governments to decide how to spend federal money and make more decisions than in the past. This change gives local nonprofits even more responsibility to tell local policymakers what is needed and what will work. And because more decisions are being made locally, your lobbying can have an immediate, concrete impact on people in need.
Lobbying advances your cause and builds public trust. Building public trust is essential to nonprofit organizations and lobbying helps you gain it by increasing your organization’s visibility. Just as raising funds and recruiting volunteers are important to achieving your organization’s mission so is lobbying. You miss out on an important opportunity to advance your cause if you don’t think as much about relationships with local, state, and federal government.
more...
house [My Budget Planner] [21
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
tattoo Printable Menu Plan and
puddonhead
06-07 05:39 PM
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
Reward checking accounts are your friend....
Reward Checking Account Discussion (http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/775437)
They typically have some requirements like you may have to
1. Make 8-12 debit card transactions a month. Automatic payments for small amounts are usually your friend here.
2. Some of them may also need one or two direct deposits per month into the account.
The max balance up to which they will pay this interest rate is usually 25k. If you are rich - simply open up more than one at different financial institutions.
Right now - the rates are in the 4% range - but this is a very unusual time. I have seen rates in 6-7% range most of the time.
And if you are worried about risk - I guess nothing in this world can beat FDIC insurance in terms of risk hedge. I don't mean to say that the US government can never go bankrupt. In fact - the current strategy to spend spend spend out of the recession increases that chance. But there is NOTHING, not even stuffing your money in your mattress (hint: inflation) - which is superior in terms of preserving your capital.
Reward checking accounts are your friend....
Reward Checking Account Discussion (http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/775437)
They typically have some requirements like you may have to
1. Make 8-12 debit card transactions a month. Automatic payments for small amounts are usually your friend here.
2. Some of them may also need one or two direct deposits per month into the account.
The max balance up to which they will pay this interest rate is usually 25k. If you are rich - simply open up more than one at different financial institutions.
Right now - the rates are in the 4% range - but this is a very unusual time. I have seen rates in 6-7% range most of the time.
And if you are worried about risk - I guess nothing in this world can beat FDIC insurance in terms of risk hedge. I don't mean to say that the US government can never go bankrupt. In fact - the current strategy to spend spend spend out of the recession increases that chance. But there is NOTHING, not even stuffing your money in your mattress (hint: inflation) - which is superior in terms of preserving your capital.
more...
pictures loadedfind all free Printablethis colorful menu plan on this downloadnov
alisa
01-06 11:58 PM
For all who think "Fatah" is more moderate than Hamas, heres a part of the constitution of Fatah:
Goals
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (13) Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination.
"Eradication" of the Jewish state., their culture and there economy. Heres a movement which has "Genocide" as its constituional goal. How the hell do you negotiate with such people? Israel needs to be supported in its noble actions of self defense againt such fanatics.
Good point.
There should just be a greater and proper Israel, with Gaza and West Bank as parts of Israel. And all people living there should be citizens of Israel.
Problem solved. No need to destroy anything or anyone.
Goals
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (13) Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination.
"Eradication" of the Jewish state., their culture and there economy. Heres a movement which has "Genocide" as its constituional goal. How the hell do you negotiate with such people? Israel needs to be supported in its noble actions of self defense againt such fanatics.
Good point.
There should just be a greater and proper Israel, with Gaza and West Bank as parts of Israel. And all people living there should be citizens of Israel.
Problem solved. No need to destroy anything or anyone.
dresses Monthly Meal Planner
abcdgc
12-27 02:02 AM
It is my reading that if India performs surgical strikes on the terrorist camps in Pakistan, Pakistan will not be able to do anything because according to Pakistan, there are no terrorist camps, so how can someone bomb a camp if that camp doesn't exist.
I think US has told Gilani and Zardari not to respond if India conducts 1-2 surgical strikes. But Kaayani wants to respond. That's why Musharraf is making public statements saying that - if India strikes, "Democratically elected" President & PM will take steps to respond. Musharraf is putting the onus to respond on Zardari and Gilani. They do not want to respond. But Kaayani will order a response anyways, without a go ahead from Zardari and Gilani. There is only 1 stading institution in Pakistan - its army. We have to dismatle Pakistani army and ISI, otherwise it will continue to breed & foster more terrorist.
I think US has told Gilani and Zardari not to respond if India conducts 1-2 surgical strikes. But Kaayani wants to respond. That's why Musharraf is making public statements saying that - if India strikes, "Democratically elected" President & PM will take steps to respond. Musharraf is putting the onus to respond on Zardari and Gilani. They do not want to respond. But Kaayani will order a response anyways, without a go ahead from Zardari and Gilani. There is only 1 stading institution in Pakistan - its army. We have to dismatle Pakistani army and ISI, otherwise it will continue to breed & foster more terrorist.
more...
makeup Menu Planner {Weekly Calendar
![printable menu planner. [My Budget Planner] [21](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uWHZ50PCW4tLp2NdQNs6dXczlsw2NWyGDOc3ghfjo-Bq-72VVScGptmXRRE4jFEYJvqv0lMejlkGw3mkNXR4UhBKkCnPc=s0-d "[My Budget Planner] [21")
gcisadawg
01-07 04:49 PM
From the wikipedia:
As of October 13, 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of UC Banerjee committee "illegal" and "unconstitutional". As of now all its probe results stand invalid.
Thanks for the link, that is exactly my point. One committee/institution comes up with one story and another one denies it. It goes on and on till the common man forget the whole thing. And then a new issue comes up..
Lets wait and see how 'Supreme Court' appointed R.K Raghavan commission plays out.
As of October 13, 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of UC Banerjee committee "illegal" and "unconstitutional". As of now all its probe results stand invalid.
Thanks for the link, that is exactly my point. One committee/institution comes up with one story and another one denies it. It goes on and on till the common man forget the whole thing. And then a new issue comes up..
Lets wait and see how 'Supreme Court' appointed R.K Raghavan commission plays out.
girlfriend room for menu planning and
gchopes
06-23 12:22 PM
If you are worried about 485 getting denied then -
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
hairstyles the daycare menu planner
engineer
01-03 05:40 PM
Nojoke,
Will you accept responsibility of Gujrat Massacre first ?
and hand over all those to International Criminal Court..
Will you accept responsibility of Babri Mosque demolation?
India and media continues to talk about proof but why that proof is not share with UN, Interpoo ? Why so hush hush...I am sure you know that both sided dont even truct opposite umpires in cricket match...and you think Pakistan government will just believe on Indian word that 'they have proof"..
point is...Pakistanis and Pakistani state is not responsible for Mubmai attacks. We have suffered on hands of these extremist just like you have.. we had 60+ suicide bombings, hundreds of civilians killed, Marriot Blast...
point is...India and Indians are not responsible for Babri Mosque demolations or Gujrat Massacre..you have suffered enough like us.
War is not solution...you will be naive to think that Pakistan will not retaliate..in matter of minutes..both sides will loose many able folks during war..and that is what terrorists want..
Need of hour is to condem these acts in any way shape or form in Pakistan, India, Kashmir etc..and work together to weed these elements out..
I have many close Indian friends and believe me, from deep of my heart, I dont mean any harm whatsoever..and I am sure they dont mean harm to me as well.
I wish both sides can site on table, have chai or lasse and start talks on following items:
1. How to curb terrorism in India and Pakistan and Afghanistan..
I have no doubt that if both sides do this, we can weed these nuts
out.
2. We must somehow find some solution to Kashmir ...it fuels nuts all around the world. It bogs down Pakistan and India and stops any cooperation.
I am Kashmiri..and it doesnot matter who fires ...in Indian Adminstred Kashmir or Pakistani Adminstred Kashmir, my people get killed..
If UK can live with Germany and France after bitter WWII ..we sure can...
3. I am for Open Visas...so both sides can travel freely..As India develops its economy further, it can outsource many activities to 30 M Pakistani youth
4. Lets excahnge prisoners ..those are poor people rotting in jails for no reasons..and even if there is some stupid reason, ask Presidents to pardon them...
You work in US and know every issue needs compromise, discussion and then something gets done..
If you cannot take actions on these terrorists and keep giving reasons for not handing over the terrorists, you don't have any credibility to give us advice. You don't even feel that your country men are responsible and you ask us to modify our behavior. How about going and doing something to change your country first? Meanwhile we will ponder if war is the only option left, because nothing else seems to be working...
Will you accept responsibility of Gujrat Massacre first ?
and hand over all those to International Criminal Court..
Will you accept responsibility of Babri Mosque demolation?
India and media continues to talk about proof but why that proof is not share with UN, Interpoo ? Why so hush hush...I am sure you know that both sided dont even truct opposite umpires in cricket match...and you think Pakistan government will just believe on Indian word that 'they have proof"..
point is...Pakistanis and Pakistani state is not responsible for Mubmai attacks. We have suffered on hands of these extremist just like you have.. we had 60+ suicide bombings, hundreds of civilians killed, Marriot Blast...
point is...India and Indians are not responsible for Babri Mosque demolations or Gujrat Massacre..you have suffered enough like us.
War is not solution...you will be naive to think that Pakistan will not retaliate..in matter of minutes..both sides will loose many able folks during war..and that is what terrorists want..
Need of hour is to condem these acts in any way shape or form in Pakistan, India, Kashmir etc..and work together to weed these elements out..
I have many close Indian friends and believe me, from deep of my heart, I dont mean any harm whatsoever..and I am sure they dont mean harm to me as well.
I wish both sides can site on table, have chai or lasse and start talks on following items:
1. How to curb terrorism in India and Pakistan and Afghanistan..
I have no doubt that if both sides do this, we can weed these nuts
out.
2. We must somehow find some solution to Kashmir ...it fuels nuts all around the world. It bogs down Pakistan and India and stops any cooperation.
I am Kashmiri..and it doesnot matter who fires ...in Indian Adminstred Kashmir or Pakistani Adminstred Kashmir, my people get killed..
If UK can live with Germany and France after bitter WWII ..we sure can...
3. I am for Open Visas...so both sides can travel freely..As India develops its economy further, it can outsource many activities to 30 M Pakistani youth
4. Lets excahnge prisoners ..those are poor people rotting in jails for no reasons..and even if there is some stupid reason, ask Presidents to pardon them...
You work in US and know every issue needs compromise, discussion and then something gets done..
If you cannot take actions on these terrorists and keep giving reasons for not handing over the terrorists, you don't have any credibility to give us advice. You don't even feel that your country men are responsible and you ask us to modify our behavior. How about going and doing something to change your country first? Meanwhile we will ponder if war is the only option left, because nothing else seems to be working...
santb1975
10-01 01:41 AM
I wonder how many $$$ GWB Sr. had to donate to Yale for GWB to get in ...I better stop my rant..:rolleyes:
Just to clarify GWB is a Yale graduate.
With a democratic controlled congress and Obama being a president, CIR is bound to happen. If high-skilled community doesn't unite and get our voices heard then we might come up empty. Remember the last time an immigration bill was passed by the Democratic president (AC21). They flashed few carrots (2-yr recapture, portability and H1 extension beyond 6 yr) and threw us under the bus with flood of 245i applicants. EB3 queue is still suffering from those backlogs.
In the near term only democrats will be in a position to provide us with some relief because they control the congress.
Just to clarify GWB is a Yale graduate.
With a democratic controlled congress and Obama being a president, CIR is bound to happen. If high-skilled community doesn't unite and get our voices heard then we might come up empty. Remember the last time an immigration bill was passed by the Democratic president (AC21). They flashed few carrots (2-yr recapture, portability and H1 extension beyond 6 yr) and threw us under the bus with flood of 245i applicants. EB3 queue is still suffering from those backlogs.
In the near term only democrats will be in a position to provide us with some relief because they control the congress.
gimme_GC2006
03-24 10:12 AM
Dude ask your employer to mail it himself to USCIS. You are not asking these documents for your timepass these are requested by USCIS so forward this mail to him and ask him to respond any ways its his responsiblity to support this GC application since it is his company that is asking for green card.
well..my current employer got email from dhs and he is sending out all details..but what about my previous employers..??
well..my current employer got email from dhs and he is sending out all details..but what about my previous employers..??
