rpat1968
07-15 10:53 AM
Signed
wallpaper hairstyles for short hair 2011
Illegalx17
06-20 12:36 AM
Hey, this is a great idea for a battle. Sign me up, i'll enter :D. I wish we could enter two entries though. . .pleeeez?
diptam
07-15 11:44 PM
"You successfully signed Lou Dobbs' show spreading misinformation on Highly Skilled H1-B workers. petition.
Petition owner will manually approve your signatures."
## The above is the return message - who is this Petition Owner ??
Thanks
Guests and members,
Please take the time to sign this petition so that it can be delivered to CNN as soon as possible.
Petition owner will manually approve your signatures."
## The above is the return message - who is this Petition Owner ??
Thanks
Guests and members,
Please take the time to sign this petition so that it can be delivered to CNN as soon as possible.
2011 cute short haircuts 2011
Macaca
12-17 07:01 PM
From pages 8-9 of Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
India-based Patni Computer Systems agreed with the Department of Labor that the company paid 607 workers on H-1B visas less than the prevailing wage in 2004 and 2005. The Department of Labor did not oppose Patni�s contention that this was due to an accounting error, since the government did not assess any additional penalties and concluded Patni�s actions were not willful. Patni agreed to pay approximately $2.4 million to the 607 workers, which comes to slightly less than $4,000 each.
It is worth noting that $4,000 per worker is likely less than what the company paid in various legal and government fees to sponsor the workers ($5,000 to $6,000 in legal and government fees).
India-based Patni Computer Systems agreed with the Department of Labor that the company paid 607 workers on H-1B visas less than the prevailing wage in 2004 and 2005. The Department of Labor did not oppose Patni�s contention that this was due to an accounting error, since the government did not assess any additional penalties and concluded Patni�s actions were not willful. Patni agreed to pay approximately $2.4 million to the 607 workers, which comes to slightly less than $4,000 each.
It is worth noting that $4,000 per worker is likely less than what the company paid in various legal and government fees to sponsor the workers ($5,000 to $6,000 in legal and government fees).
more...
thepaew
12-13 03:53 PM
I agree. I feel that the only thing that would be acheived if IV became a paid website is loss of membership. Then our PR documents will start with "IV is an organization of 200 members who are affected by ... "
Human nature is such that a few lead and others follow. We should recognize this and move on.
Human nature is such that a few lead and others follow. We should recognize this and move on.
chanduv23
07-19 07:25 AM
Remember, most people are working hard and chances are that they may get fired for jobs doing this.
SO many IV members have been risking thier jobs to work hard on these things.
So many people have taken unpaid vacations, spent valuble time on this.
Kudos to Aman, Himanshu, Jwalant, and all other folks who are helping the community.
A lot of people are free riders, they come to IV for informartion only. A lot of people do not want to do anything, just because someone else is doing it for them. I have heard excuses from people saying "Don't you have anything else to do??? You will be fired from your job, I bet you, don't get disillusioned by these folks at IV, they cant move a stone"
SO many IV members have been risking thier jobs to work hard on these things.
So many people have taken unpaid vacations, spent valuble time on this.
Kudos to Aman, Himanshu, Jwalant, and all other folks who are helping the community.
A lot of people are free riders, they come to IV for informartion only. A lot of people do not want to do anything, just because someone else is doing it for them. I have heard excuses from people saying "Don't you have anything else to do??? You will be fired from your job, I bet you, don't get disillusioned by these folks at IV, they cant move a stone"
more...
add78
04-27 08:44 PM
I read through the bill but don't quite understand...if I am working for a client on H1B, will I need to stop working as soon as this bill takes effect? or it only applies to newly applied H1B's (or extension/transfer)?
Yes, that is my understanding at this point based on the language . As soon as the bill goes into effect, you will need to stop working at the client site if the bill passes in its current form AND you are working as a FT employee (w-2) of a mere placement company (aka agent or desi consulting). If you are an FT employee of big consulting company then until they get waiver for you AND your current client proves that no layoffs were done at the client site in the last 180 days, you will need to stop working.
Yes, that is my understanding at this point based on the language . As soon as the bill goes into effect, you will need to stop working at the client site if the bill passes in its current form AND you are working as a FT employee (w-2) of a mere placement company (aka agent or desi consulting). If you are an FT employee of big consulting company then until they get waiver for you AND your current client proves that no layoffs were done at the client site in the last 180 days, you will need to stop working.
2010 little boys long hairstyles.
StuckInTheMuck
04-28 12:50 PM
Just One more in DOs.
File AR-11 whenever you move.
Thanks, number30 - someone else beat you for the credit though (point #11) :)
File AR-11 whenever you move.
Thanks, number30 - someone else beat you for the credit though (point #11) :)
more...
bluekayal
10-29 03:18 AM
@alterego
I remember that night....since then I lost my 2004 PD, had many hopes dashed, got laid off and so on...but still here, Enjoy your Green!
"I've spent so long waiting I even get nostalgic about the early days. I remember very well, blogging one cold December night on Immigrationportal with Wallenpond, Pdakwala, Superman,Khodalmd and many other early IV luminaries in 2005 putting up a rearguard uncoordinated effort, when Rep. Sensenbrenner scuttled our visa recapture chances in conference committee. Following which IV was born with leadership from folks well known to us now. IV is your organisation and platform. It will only be as strong as you let it be. "
I remember that night....since then I lost my 2004 PD, had many hopes dashed, got laid off and so on...but still here, Enjoy your Green!
"I've spent so long waiting I even get nostalgic about the early days. I remember very well, blogging one cold December night on Immigrationportal with Wallenpond, Pdakwala, Superman,Khodalmd and many other early IV luminaries in 2005 putting up a rearguard uncoordinated effort, when Rep. Sensenbrenner scuttled our visa recapture chances in conference committee. Following which IV was born with leadership from folks well known to us now. IV is your organisation and platform. It will only be as strong as you let it be. "
hair Cute Short Prom Hairstyles
kate123
03-10 05:20 PM
I am trying to get the original question info from him. Probably he will read the thread and answer it.
I guess it is 485. Country of birth does not come in to picture at 140 stage.
I guess it is 485. Country of birth does not come in to picture at 140 stage.
more...
visves
02-11 06:52 PM
Absolutely not. AC21 only removs the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand is less than the total of available numbers. In the present calendar year, the overall demand is defenitely more than the total of available number and AC21 priviledges would not apply.
DOS would clearly violate the 7 percent limit if excess EB2 ROW numbers flow to EB2 china/india. Don't want to get into an argument here, so I will leave it at this. Each person is entitled to his/her interpretation just as DOS has its own. Peace.
What ever you are saying is absoutly true till year 2000,ie before AC21 act.
But after 2000, the simple answer is NO. The unused numbers in EB2 shuold go to retrogressed countries in EB2 first, and if any numbers are left then it should go to EB3-ROW.
DOS would clearly violate the 7 percent limit if excess EB2 ROW numbers flow to EB2 china/india. Don't want to get into an argument here, so I will leave it at this. Each person is entitled to his/her interpretation just as DOS has its own. Peace.
What ever you are saying is absoutly true till year 2000,ie before AC21 act.
But after 2000, the simple answer is NO. The unused numbers in EB2 shuold go to retrogressed countries in EB2 first, and if any numbers are left then it should go to EB3-ROW.
hot short hair styles 2011 bob
jessie1981
07-17 01:10 PM
i am with you. we should request that USCIS recapture unused visas!
more...
house prom hairstyles for short hair
voldemar
02-28 02:05 PM
Now I understand. This guy PBECiskillingme bought a substituted labor (used illegal means) to get his application to move ahead. He thinks everyone is like him and thus criticized IV on our forums. It is because of people like him and employers that sell LC, we all get a bad name. He should also be reported to DOL and USCIS.Very strange and insulting conclusions. The only thing I was telling is that there is still time to get labor substitution done. Also there is a risk. Till substitution is banned it's not illegal.
tattoo cute hairstyles for short hair
kasanski33
02-13 04:13 PM
That was a great post LogicLife.....Its difficult to stick to the correct path when you feel everyone is against you, but you guys have done a great job and shown a lot of resilience and honor in what you are doing.
Keep up the good work...
Keep up the good work...
more...
pictures cute hairstyles for long hair
gk_2000
04-22 07:54 PM
Ok. But how does this apply to immigration?
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:
The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?
More later ..
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:
The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?
More later ..
dresses hairstyles for short hair
trueguy
11-04 12:59 PM
Feb 2003!
I feel this is too small a specimen to predict anything but so far about 25% are Jun 2003 or older...
Below is purely my speculation!
Assuming there are 400k applications pending (may be a bad assumption) > so about 100k with PD's Jun 2003 or less...
10k per year allotted so 10 years to reach June 2003 :confused:
I hope my calcs are wrong! God Bless us!
Guys: This is just for EB3-India category.
I feel this is too small a specimen to predict anything but so far about 25% are Jun 2003 or older...
Below is purely my speculation!
Assuming there are 400k applications pending (may be a bad assumption) > so about 100k with PD's Jun 2003 or less...
10k per year allotted so 10 years to reach June 2003 :confused:
I hope my calcs are wrong! God Bless us!
Guys: This is just for EB3-India category.
more...
makeup Long Scene Hairstyles 2011
485Mbe4001
11-05 01:38 PM
Wow, you must have written some letter... This is the first time that i have heard someone getting a call about NC from the presidents office.
You are right.. I got a call this Wednesday from the Presidents office of initiating an inquiry on my case and again a repeated call from them on Friday that FBI Name Check has been cleared. I forgot to mention this detail in my excitement.
Thanks,
Donald Bradman
You are right.. I got a call this Wednesday from the Presidents office of initiating an inquiry on my case and again a repeated call from them on Friday that FBI Name Check has been cleared. I forgot to mention this detail in my excitement.
Thanks,
Donald Bradman
girlfriend cute hairstyles for long hair
mk26
01-21 09:54 AM
I am in , can any one tell me if we can fight to get our social security money if they target only H1bs, why don't they do this also who will deported should get the money contributed to social security and medicare
hairstyles Latest Hair Trends 2011, short
gcformeornot
12-12 09:46 PM
who are opposing to paid services.........
If you think other immigration sites are free........... think twice...... they are offering free message posting based on your past money or future money of your fellow ralatives...............
If you think other immigration sites are free........... think twice...... they are offering free message posting based on your past money or future money of your fellow ralatives...............
langagadu
08-25 01:04 PM
I don't think this is related with EB immigration. admins please close this thread.
sameet
04-09 11:53 PM
Sameet,
Thanks for your response. My wife is in India currently. Wondering if we can get a letter from a pediatrician there.
Thanks,
GCisaDawg
No I wouldn't. Get it from the your child's pediatrician since they know the case history and will be able to word it correctly. Remember that the letter from the pediatrician is the basis which the certified civil curgeon for USCIS will use to apply for a waiver if he/she thinks it is necessary.
Thanks for your response. My wife is in India currently. Wondering if we can get a letter from a pediatrician there.
Thanks,
GCisaDawg
No I wouldn't. Get it from the your child's pediatrician since they know the case history and will be able to word it correctly. Remember that the letter from the pediatrician is the basis which the certified civil curgeon for USCIS will use to apply for a waiver if he/she thinks it is necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment