sanju
12-29 02:29 PM
I do not know how much this true ,but one thing is sure America is helping ISLAM (As of today and popular belief that america is destroying ISLAM) ..
by clearing the mess out of Afganistan ,IRAQ and well sometime may be from IRAN ....
Why they are doing >>>> Why they are helping Israel and Attacking Countries which has vast muslim poulation and near to Israel ...Why not attacking Indonesia ,Malaysia ,Pakistan because the Bible has something like that
" Jews must have own land to have a Great ARMAGADEM WAR .When most of the jews will be defeated and killed ,few left will accept christanity. "
so how to achieve this . Please mind America is ruled by Conservative christian not by jews ...
Well read Bible and other books and you will able to judge .....
So I have tried to acknowledge two things " A country go for war when future is not safe" and America Need to keep Alive israel till the great ARMGADEM WAR " So you will say why america is havinng WAR "
Please note that Jews killed Jesus. This fact do not go well with conservative
I�ve heard some real whoppers in my life, but this one tops them all. I am sure your favroite movie is - Conspiracy Theory.
Cheers!
.
by clearing the mess out of Afganistan ,IRAQ and well sometime may be from IRAN ....
Why they are doing >>>> Why they are helping Israel and Attacking Countries which has vast muslim poulation and near to Israel ...Why not attacking Indonesia ,Malaysia ,Pakistan because the Bible has something like that
" Jews must have own land to have a Great ARMAGADEM WAR .When most of the jews will be defeated and killed ,few left will accept christanity. "
so how to achieve this . Please mind America is ruled by Conservative christian not by jews ...
Well read Bible and other books and you will able to judge .....
So I have tried to acknowledge two things " A country go for war when future is not safe" and America Need to keep Alive israel till the great ARMGADEM WAR " So you will say why america is havinng WAR "
Please note that Jews killed Jesus. This fact do not go well with conservative
I�ve heard some real whoppers in my life, but this one tops them all. I am sure your favroite movie is - Conspiracy Theory.
Cheers!
.
wallpaper Alexander Skarsgård is cast as
VSS2007
07-13 12:28 AM
Really Good Work!!!
NKR
08-06 04:15 PM
That PD was for an entirely different skill set and job. I know its the law. I still disagree. Can do that last I knew :-)
If you go strictly by that, then allocating unused EB1 visa numbers to EB2 is also wrong. EB1 visas are meant for an entirely different skill set and job.
EB2 guys and EB3 guys are at a disadvantage depending on which way you look at it. I guess capturing previous years� unused visa numbers is the only way to go then�
If you go strictly by that, then allocating unused EB1 visa numbers to EB2 is also wrong. EB1 visas are meant for an entirely different skill set and job.
EB2 guys and EB3 guys are at a disadvantage depending on which way you look at it. I guess capturing previous years� unused visa numbers is the only way to go then�
2011 wallpaper true blood cast
nk2006
09-30 02:54 PM
Yes, you are right, the recent 485 denials for people using AC-21 have nothing to do with Obama/Durbin immigtaion policy. But I kind of remember there were some harsh provisions for people using AC 21 in CIR 2007 version. I am trying to find out the details about it.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I dont think there were any provisions in 2007 CIR that curtail job movement using AC21 for greencard holders. I think we are over-analyzing this - that Sen.Durbin is against lot of H1B provisions is evident. Also he may not be in favor of visa-recapture for EB immigrants - but I dont think he will single handedly drive immigration rules and make the life of all EB immigrants tough. He may have some support in changing the rules in H1B - but I dont think even he is not that negative regarding GC aspects - even if he is, may not get widespread support for it in congress.
Also Obama has shown his governing style (from the campaign, debate etc) - which is very level headed based on a bunch of things and discussions rather than following "one" ideological path blindly. If at all I think his administration will be more favorable to EB GC reform and somewhat unfavorable H1B reform (and completely pro-undocumented reform just like McCain). This is based on my interpretation of his immigration policies on his site and based on his general campaign.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I dont think there were any provisions in 2007 CIR that curtail job movement using AC21 for greencard holders. I think we are over-analyzing this - that Sen.Durbin is against lot of H1B provisions is evident. Also he may not be in favor of visa-recapture for EB immigrants - but I dont think he will single handedly drive immigration rules and make the life of all EB immigrants tough. He may have some support in changing the rules in H1B - but I dont think even he is not that negative regarding GC aspects - even if he is, may not get widespread support for it in congress.
Also Obama has shown his governing style (from the campaign, debate etc) - which is very level headed based on a bunch of things and discussions rather than following "one" ideological path blindly. If at all I think his administration will be more favorable to EB GC reform and somewhat unfavorable H1B reform (and completely pro-undocumented reform just like McCain). This is based on my interpretation of his immigration policies on his site and based on his general campaign.
more...
Macaca
05-11 05:28 PM
The 'Education' Mantra (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/the_education_mantra_109799.html) By Thomas Sowell | Investor's Business Daily
One of the sad and dangerous signs of our times is how many people are enthralled by words, without bothering to look at the realities behind those words.
One of those words that many people seldom look behind is "education." But education can cover anything from courses on nuclear physics to courses on baton twirling.
Unfortunately, an increasing proportion of American education, whether in the schools or in the colleges and universities, is closer to the baton twirling end of the spectrum than toward the nuclear physics end. Even reputable colleges are increasingly teaching things that students should have learned in high school.
We don't have a backlog of serious students trying to take serious courses. If you look at the fields in which American students specialize in colleges and universities, those fields are heavily weighted toward the soft end of the spectrum.
When it comes to postgraduate study in tough fields like math and science, you often find foreign students at American universities receiving more of such degrees than do Americans.
A recent headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education said: "Master's in English: Will Mow Lawns." It featured a man with that degree who has gone into the landscaping business because there is no great demand for people with Master's degrees in English.
Too many of the people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.
Students can graduate from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country, without ever learning anything about science, mathematics, economics or anything else that would make them either a productive contributor to the economy or an informed voter who can see through political rhetoric.
On the contrary, people with such "education" are often more susceptible to demagoguery than the population at large. Nor is this a situation peculiar to America. In countries around the world, people with degrees in soft subjects have been sources of political unrest, instability and even mass violence.
Nor is this a new phenomenon. A scholarly history of 19th century Prague referred to "the well-educated but underemployed" Czech young men who promoted ethnic polarization there-- a polarization that not only continued, but escalated, in the 20th century to produce bitter tragedies for both Czechs and Germans.
In other central European countries, between the two World Wars a rising class of newly educated young people bitterly resented having to compete with better qualified Jews in the universities and with Jews already established in business and the professions. Anti-Semitic policies and violence were the result.
It was much the same story in Asia, where successful minorities like the Chinese in Malaysia were resented by newly educated Malays without either the educational or business skills to compete with them. These Malaysians demanded-- and got-- heavily discriminatory laws and policies against the Chinese.
Similar situations developed at various times in Nigeria, Romania, Sri Lanka, Hungary and India, among other places.
Many Third World countries have turned out so many people with diplomas, but without meaningful skills, that "the educated unemployed" became a cliche among people who study such countries. This has not only become a personal problem for those individuals who have been educated, or half-educated, without acquiring any ability to fulfill their rising expectations, it has become a major economic and political problem for these countries.
Such people have proven to be ideal targets for demagogues promoting polarization and strife. We in the United States are still in the early stages of that process. But you need only visit campuses where whole departments feature soft courses preaching a sense of victimhood and resentment, and see the consequences in racial and ethnic polarization on campus.
There are too many other soft courses that allow students to spend years in college without becoming educated in any real sense.
We don't need more government "investment" to produce more of such "education." Lofty words like "investment" should not blind us to the ugly reality of political porkbarrel spending.
Tiger Mom: Here's how to reshape U.S. education (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-10-Reshape-US-education_n.htm) By Amy Chua | USA Today
The American Idea: An Open Letter To College Graduates (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/09/american-idea-college-graduates.html) By Carl Schramm | Forbes
The Myth of American Exceptionalism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/taking_exceptionalism_109795.html) By Richard Cohen | Washington Post
The Role of Economics in an Imperfect World (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/the-role-of-economics-in-an-imperfect-world/) By EDWARD L. GLAESER | New York Times
Where the Jobs Were Lost (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/where-the-jobs-were-lost/) By CASEY B. MULLIGAN | New York Times
No, We Are Not a Nation of Hamburger Flippers (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/09/nation-hamburger-flippers/) By Elizabeth MacDonald | Fox Business
Multinationals Dump U.S. Workers for Foreign Labor (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/05/09/Multinationals-Dump-US-Workers-for-Foreign-Labor.aspx) By JAMES C. COOPER | The Fiscal Times
California Economy Gets a Jolt From Tech Hiring (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576311373667322428.html) By JIM CARLTON | Wall Street Journal
One of the sad and dangerous signs of our times is how many people are enthralled by words, without bothering to look at the realities behind those words.
One of those words that many people seldom look behind is "education." But education can cover anything from courses on nuclear physics to courses on baton twirling.
Unfortunately, an increasing proportion of American education, whether in the schools or in the colleges and universities, is closer to the baton twirling end of the spectrum than toward the nuclear physics end. Even reputable colleges are increasingly teaching things that students should have learned in high school.
We don't have a backlog of serious students trying to take serious courses. If you look at the fields in which American students specialize in colleges and universities, those fields are heavily weighted toward the soft end of the spectrum.
When it comes to postgraduate study in tough fields like math and science, you often find foreign students at American universities receiving more of such degrees than do Americans.
A recent headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education said: "Master's in English: Will Mow Lawns." It featured a man with that degree who has gone into the landscaping business because there is no great demand for people with Master's degrees in English.
Too many of the people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.
Students can graduate from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country, without ever learning anything about science, mathematics, economics or anything else that would make them either a productive contributor to the economy or an informed voter who can see through political rhetoric.
On the contrary, people with such "education" are often more susceptible to demagoguery than the population at large. Nor is this a situation peculiar to America. In countries around the world, people with degrees in soft subjects have been sources of political unrest, instability and even mass violence.
Nor is this a new phenomenon. A scholarly history of 19th century Prague referred to "the well-educated but underemployed" Czech young men who promoted ethnic polarization there-- a polarization that not only continued, but escalated, in the 20th century to produce bitter tragedies for both Czechs and Germans.
In other central European countries, between the two World Wars a rising class of newly educated young people bitterly resented having to compete with better qualified Jews in the universities and with Jews already established in business and the professions. Anti-Semitic policies and violence were the result.
It was much the same story in Asia, where successful minorities like the Chinese in Malaysia were resented by newly educated Malays without either the educational or business skills to compete with them. These Malaysians demanded-- and got-- heavily discriminatory laws and policies against the Chinese.
Similar situations developed at various times in Nigeria, Romania, Sri Lanka, Hungary and India, among other places.
Many Third World countries have turned out so many people with diplomas, but without meaningful skills, that "the educated unemployed" became a cliche among people who study such countries. This has not only become a personal problem for those individuals who have been educated, or half-educated, without acquiring any ability to fulfill their rising expectations, it has become a major economic and political problem for these countries.
Such people have proven to be ideal targets for demagogues promoting polarization and strife. We in the United States are still in the early stages of that process. But you need only visit campuses where whole departments feature soft courses preaching a sense of victimhood and resentment, and see the consequences in racial and ethnic polarization on campus.
There are too many other soft courses that allow students to spend years in college without becoming educated in any real sense.
We don't need more government "investment" to produce more of such "education." Lofty words like "investment" should not blind us to the ugly reality of political porkbarrel spending.
Tiger Mom: Here's how to reshape U.S. education (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-10-Reshape-US-education_n.htm) By Amy Chua | USA Today
The American Idea: An Open Letter To College Graduates (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/09/american-idea-college-graduates.html) By Carl Schramm | Forbes
The Myth of American Exceptionalism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/taking_exceptionalism_109795.html) By Richard Cohen | Washington Post
The Role of Economics in an Imperfect World (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/the-role-of-economics-in-an-imperfect-world/) By EDWARD L. GLAESER | New York Times
Where the Jobs Were Lost (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/where-the-jobs-were-lost/) By CASEY B. MULLIGAN | New York Times
No, We Are Not a Nation of Hamburger Flippers (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/09/nation-hamburger-flippers/) By Elizabeth MacDonald | Fox Business
Multinationals Dump U.S. Workers for Foreign Labor (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/05/09/Multinationals-Dump-US-Workers-for-Foreign-Labor.aspx) By JAMES C. COOPER | The Fiscal Times
California Economy Gets a Jolt From Tech Hiring (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576311373667322428.html) By JIM CARLTON | Wall Street Journal
GCOP
07-13 10:11 AM
We are going to write the letter to DOS. All of us in EB3, request IV to step up the efforts to solve EB3 visa problem. EB2 has already advanced to 2006. We are happy for them. EB3 is still in 2001 . Nothing can be more serious than this. IV's concentrated efforts (Meeting with DOS or other authorities) in this situation will be highly admired, at this time when it's needed the most. Thanks in Advance.
more...
mariner5555
04-06 06:55 AM
Land cannot be manufactured. The population is growing by the day and people need a place to live. So the space is at a premium here. The housing market maybe down because of the sub-prime crisis and the banks going out of business. But eventually it has to come back. Maybe this market is not for people who are looking to invest.
Look at india for instance: whatever state the economy is in, the housing always booms because of the supply/demand factor. Eventually US will reach that stage unless otherwise the population shrinks.
land cannot be manufactured but look around. US has a massive excess of land compared to its population. what you say about India is correct(to some degree but there are local bubbles out there too)..US will never have that ratio of people / land. especially you don't know what the trend is going to be with the baby boomers ..will they sell their houses and live in mexico ..you never know (so cannot predict). price of land will go up over long long term (due to inflation) but in the short term it is DOWN DOWN and DOWN. if one can wait for a year then they should wait ..and if you do a analysis of costs ..renting is not throwing off yr money ..you get a place to stay (a place which has mobility, less maintenance etc). Especially if you are in banking or related sectors ..just wait ..u don't know who will collapse next.
btw for central NJ (not familiar with that area) ..the price projection in next 5 years is still down.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/price_rent_ratios/
here is another point from earlier post
------------
Because the baby-boom generation is so much bigger than succeeding generations, the ratio of people in the retirement years, 65 and older, to those in the working years, 20 to 64, will rise from 20.6% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2030, according to the Census Bureau.
For most people, the house they live in is their biggest retirement asset. In retirement, people cash in on the value of their homes by selling and then buying less expensive houses, renting or moving in with the kids.
-----------
Look at india for instance: whatever state the economy is in, the housing always booms because of the supply/demand factor. Eventually US will reach that stage unless otherwise the population shrinks.
land cannot be manufactured but look around. US has a massive excess of land compared to its population. what you say about India is correct(to some degree but there are local bubbles out there too)..US will never have that ratio of people / land. especially you don't know what the trend is going to be with the baby boomers ..will they sell their houses and live in mexico ..you never know (so cannot predict). price of land will go up over long long term (due to inflation) but in the short term it is DOWN DOWN and DOWN. if one can wait for a year then they should wait ..and if you do a analysis of costs ..renting is not throwing off yr money ..you get a place to stay (a place which has mobility, less maintenance etc). Especially if you are in banking or related sectors ..just wait ..u don't know who will collapse next.
btw for central NJ (not familiar with that area) ..the price projection in next 5 years is still down.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/price_rent_ratios/
here is another point from earlier post
------------
Because the baby-boom generation is so much bigger than succeeding generations, the ratio of people in the retirement years, 65 and older, to those in the working years, 20 to 64, will rise from 20.6% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2030, according to the Census Bureau.
For most people, the house they live in is their biggest retirement asset. In retirement, people cash in on the value of their homes by selling and then buying less expensive houses, renting or moving in with the kids.
-----------
2010 True Blood - Eric Northman
xyzgc
12-25 04:30 PM
We suffer due to the unfairness of a system that hinges upon the place of your birth! We demand that there be no quotas based on "country of birth" and that we ask for equitable treatment.
Singling someone out due to his/her "national origin" should be something we backlogged EB2/3 I folks should understand more than others. And yet if someone from Pakistan gets a green card - we gang up on him and are outraged that someone from a terrorist country got it before us!!!! Does that mean we would be ok as long as he got it after us?
I apologize for singling out Talash. I just got frustrated with the fact that you can come from a small, war-mongering terrorist country and get your gc in a year's time, gloat over it, while our tax money of several years finds its way intothe coffers of the very same nation and we wait patiently for several years to see the green.
It was misdirected anger and I stand corrected for singling out some one like this but it doesn't make my point completely invalid either.
I got plenty of red dots after my mere mention of the stupidity of ganging up on the fella... red dots are ok... it was the messages that came along with that were offensive - traitor , paki pork, etc - I just deleted my posts after that and stopped commenting on that particular thread.
I never hurled insults at others and never intended to - you should see the offline messages people left me and you will be equally surprised educated people can use such a horrible language! I'm quite sure several others didn't do that as well. Most folks have been logical and consistent in their posts.
I gave reds because I got reds - I didn't insult anyone at all. And I'm sure there are many others like me, who didn't participate in this dirty name calling but posted their views openly.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the history of India and Pakistan, nothing woring in discussing organized vs. unorganized religion, nothing wrong with pointing out the the flaws in Islam or any other religion - The problem is that such discussions always end up with insults hurled at each other. While we may start with the noble intention of having a civil discussion about these issues - every thread like this ends up with offensive remarks that drives people away. The simple question then becomes - is it worth it? Is this the place to do it? Would such a thread be allowed to continue on Ron Gotcher's website? I hope the moderators of this site realize that inaction on their part seems like they condone this type of behavior.
Why are you "singling" out this particular thread?
Haven't you seen enough bickering, shouting, name calling on other threads, which are supposedly, solely focused on addressing immigration issues.
How many threads have you seen not ending up in flaming at each others? Nearly, in every thread that is related to immigration, people jump at each others throats. Otherwise, there are threads which post useless visa bulletin predictions (I've done it myself).
And what have you done to stop it, may I ask?:(
All the red dots coming my way are more than welcome... just a small request about the insults .... please be brave enough to post them publicy!
So let us now go back to solving all the controversial theological, anthropological and geopolitical issues. Let us continue to demand for fairness and an immigration system blind to our country of birth - but make sure we point out other people's national origin... no wonder the most anti-immigration people are generally the most recent immigrants.
Agreed.
Singling someone out due to his/her "national origin" should be something we backlogged EB2/3 I folks should understand more than others. And yet if someone from Pakistan gets a green card - we gang up on him and are outraged that someone from a terrorist country got it before us!!!! Does that mean we would be ok as long as he got it after us?
I apologize for singling out Talash. I just got frustrated with the fact that you can come from a small, war-mongering terrorist country and get your gc in a year's time, gloat over it, while our tax money of several years finds its way intothe coffers of the very same nation and we wait patiently for several years to see the green.
It was misdirected anger and I stand corrected for singling out some one like this but it doesn't make my point completely invalid either.
I got plenty of red dots after my mere mention of the stupidity of ganging up on the fella... red dots are ok... it was the messages that came along with that were offensive - traitor , paki pork, etc - I just deleted my posts after that and stopped commenting on that particular thread.
I never hurled insults at others and never intended to - you should see the offline messages people left me and you will be equally surprised educated people can use such a horrible language! I'm quite sure several others didn't do that as well. Most folks have been logical and consistent in their posts.
I gave reds because I got reds - I didn't insult anyone at all. And I'm sure there are many others like me, who didn't participate in this dirty name calling but posted their views openly.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the history of India and Pakistan, nothing woring in discussing organized vs. unorganized religion, nothing wrong with pointing out the the flaws in Islam or any other religion - The problem is that such discussions always end up with insults hurled at each other. While we may start with the noble intention of having a civil discussion about these issues - every thread like this ends up with offensive remarks that drives people away. The simple question then becomes - is it worth it? Is this the place to do it? Would such a thread be allowed to continue on Ron Gotcher's website? I hope the moderators of this site realize that inaction on their part seems like they condone this type of behavior.
Why are you "singling" out this particular thread?
Haven't you seen enough bickering, shouting, name calling on other threads, which are supposedly, solely focused on addressing immigration issues.
How many threads have you seen not ending up in flaming at each others? Nearly, in every thread that is related to immigration, people jump at each others throats. Otherwise, there are threads which post useless visa bulletin predictions (I've done it myself).
And what have you done to stop it, may I ask?:(
All the red dots coming my way are more than welcome... just a small request about the insults .... please be brave enough to post them publicy!
So let us now go back to solving all the controversial theological, anthropological and geopolitical issues. Let us continue to demand for fairness and an immigration system blind to our country of birth - but make sure we point out other people's national origin... no wonder the most anti-immigration people are generally the most recent immigrants.
Agreed.
more...
Marphad
03-26 05:31 PM
Does this mean that H1B is also location specific?
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
hair true blood cast eric.
sanju
12-26 11:06 PM
In modern times, wars between nations are not started in days or weeks. Wars are not based on one event. There is a systematic three stage process to go to war and for a nation to convince the majority of the society/nation that the other guy is pure evil and your mortal enemy. Society in Pakistan is based on their haterade towards Indians. For many years children in Pakistan were taught that Indians are evil, their belief system is barbaric, and their existence means that Islam is in danger. That was the reason some of us saw posts on this forum talking about sati system in Hinduism or some others Pakistanis saying that Hindus are attacking Muslims in India, and then other Pakistanis talking about Modi, VHP and Bajrang Dal. The first step for creating a war involves propaganda within the population of the country that your enemy is evil. Pakistan has been doing this preparation very systematically for sometime.
Second stage to go to war involves finding a reason after the decision has been made to go to war. In this stage, one has to come up with a reason and then waits for the trigger to create the reason to go to war.
The third and final stage to go to war involves invoking the trigger, which will create a flash point for the war, and so the war begins. Mumabi was that trigger.
The reason why I am saying this is, because someone wrote on this form "don't be a war monger". You see, we are not creating a war. The war is being forced on us. To defend oneself is not "war mongering". Our willingness to live in peace and harmony should not become our weakness such that someone openly and deliberately attacks the population of our country. I do not hold any false sense of myth of nationalism hosting the flag. But when war is forced upon us, there is no way we can run away from it.
For a moment, just imagine, what would have happened if Mumbai attacks were done in China as "Beijing attack", or if Pakistani terrorists would have attacked Iran and they were "Tehran attack" or for that matter an attack on any country in Europe or say US. How will any other country China, Iran, UK, US, France, Germany, and score of other, how will these countries respond to the attacks like Mumbai attack? There is only one way to reply to such attacks. Respond swiftly and with full force. Personally, I believe that 30 days is too late to respond. I believe that response has to come before the ashes of the dead is still hot. Otherwise, justice hasn't served, because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the war begins, this will be my last post.
Adios
.
Second stage to go to war involves finding a reason after the decision has been made to go to war. In this stage, one has to come up with a reason and then waits for the trigger to create the reason to go to war.
The third and final stage to go to war involves invoking the trigger, which will create a flash point for the war, and so the war begins. Mumabi was that trigger.
The reason why I am saying this is, because someone wrote on this form "don't be a war monger". You see, we are not creating a war. The war is being forced on us. To defend oneself is not "war mongering". Our willingness to live in peace and harmony should not become our weakness such that someone openly and deliberately attacks the population of our country. I do not hold any false sense of myth of nationalism hosting the flag. But when war is forced upon us, there is no way we can run away from it.
For a moment, just imagine, what would have happened if Mumbai attacks were done in China as "Beijing attack", or if Pakistani terrorists would have attacked Iran and they were "Tehran attack" or for that matter an attack on any country in Europe or say US. How will any other country China, Iran, UK, US, France, Germany, and score of other, how will these countries respond to the attacks like Mumbai attack? There is only one way to reply to such attacks. Respond swiftly and with full force. Personally, I believe that 30 days is too late to respond. I believe that response has to come before the ashes of the dead is still hot. Otherwise, justice hasn't served, because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the war begins, this will be my last post.
Adios
.
more...
Macaca
05-27 05:56 PM
U.S. Must Adapt to China's New Patterns of Growth ( | World Politics Review) By IAIN MILLS | World Politics Review
The global financial crisis catapulted China into a position of international economic leadership a decade earlier than Beijing's strategists had intended. That significantly increased the urgency of rebalancing the Chinese economy away from the low-quality, export model toward higher-value, domestically driven growth.
One consequence has been new and accelerated patterns of Chinese trade and investment abroad. For the United States, China's largest economic partner, the implications of this new multidirectionalism are significant. But with recent figures showing that bilateral investment between the two countries is contracting, the U.S. must adapt its approach to this issue to ensure it benefits from the forthcoming chapter in China's domestic growth story.
American investment and consumption were the two key drivers of China's economy in its early reform years. By the time the global financial crisis struck, China had amassed $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, and it has added another trillion since. The U.S. economy benefitted from cheap, inflation-suppressing Chinese goods, while China's absorption of American debt was a key facilitator of the pre-2008 credit bubble.
Beijing seemed content to watch the coffers swell, while largely ignoring the need to rebalance the Chinese economy and devise strategies for making use of its mounting foreign exchange reserves. But the post-crisis collapse of investment and demand from developed economies has forced China to mobilize newly acquired national wealth to maintain economic momentum.
China's overseas investment strategy was originally aimed at securing key natural resources. Recently, there has been a growing focus on importing advanced technology and machinery, particularly in "strategic sectors" identified in the 12th Five-Year Plan. International expansion is being led by increasingly cash-rich state-owned enterprises and their affiliates, with sovereign wealth vehicles such as China Investment Corporation and China Development Bank also adopting more active investment strategies.
But early indicators suggest the U.S. is missing out on the first wave of new Chinese overseas spending. As one recent report on the subject notes, "the main event in 2010 was a flood of [Chinese] money into the Western Hemisphere outside the U.S., led by Brazil but also featuring Canada, Argentina and Ecuador." Last year, China's total nonfinancial outbound direct investment (ODI) jumped 38 percent, to $60 billion, even as Chinese ODI to the U.S. contracted slightly, to just less than $6 billion. Inversely, April's foreign direct investment (FDI) into China was up by more than 15 percent on the year, but American FDI dropped 28 percent.
For China, the benefits of reducing asymmetric interdependence with the U.S. economy are clear, but it is less apparent whether the U.S. can currently afford to miss out on the huge opportunities presented by China's continued domestic growth and rapidly increasing overseas spending. Therefore, while the yuan remains a critical issue in bilateral relations, reaching consensus on the scale and scope of bilateral nonfinancial investment is an equally significant emerging topic. And although a series of diplomatic disputes in 2010 may have been partly to blame for depressed Chinese investment, the institutional arrangements of U.S.-China relations have generally failed to keep pace with China's rapid economic ascent.
Nowhere is this clearer than in bilateral investment agreements.
China is keen to expand its investments in the U.S. agricultural, natural resource, advanced manufacturing and financial sectors. But political resistance in the U.S. is high, and sources in Beijing claim that Washington is giving mixed signals over how welcome Chinese investment is. Chinese officials are seeking a list of acceptable investment areas from Washington and seem frustrated by the complex institutional arrangements of the U.S. political economy. Meanwhile, American officials have expressed concern about the security implications of Chinese capital, and a general lack of transparency on the Chinese side continues to exacerbate these fears.
Clearly, resolving these issues requires action from both sides. Washington must accept Chinese overseas investment as an economic reality going forward and design a strategy capable of deploying it in support of the national interest. The politicization of the yuan has damaged Washington's credibility in Beijing; avoiding a similar degeneration of legitimate debate on investment parameters must be a strategic priority. Washington should consider mechanisms for targeting Chinese capital in areas where it is needed most, such as urban real estate development and manufacturing. These need not amount to a centrally imposed directory, as produced annually by Beijing, but rather a semi-formal consensus that provides some kind of consistent framework for prospective Chinese investors.
Washington could also learn from the European Union's approach, which tends to maintain a greater distinction between ideological and economic policy differences with Beijing. Although the EU has the luxury of leaving political criticism to national governments, Brussels has been more low-key and consistent in discussions with Beijing on potentially inflammatory economic issues such as the yuan and China's "market economy" status. As a result, financial and nonfinancial economic integration between the two has increased substantially since 2008.
For its part, China must accept that poor standards of domestic corporate governance remain a major barrier to future economic development at home and abroad. The credibility of Chinese companies is undermined by opaque ownership structures and a general lack of transparency regarding strategic and commercial intentions. Notably, over the past five years, there has been a direct correlation between total Chinese investment in a given country and the volume of failed deals, regardless of the developmental level of the host nation. Moreover, foreign investment in China remains heavily regulated. Beijing must accept greater liberalization at home before it can push the issue too far with international partners.
Clearly, China has the responsibility to improve its domestic culture of openness and accountability. Greater and more symmetrical engagement with experienced capitalist nations can hasten this process while providing much-needed capital injections to the latters' ailing economies.
For the U.S., the central challenge is to formulate more consistent and strategically constructive responses to China's economic rise. That would entail initiating a paradigm shift in Washington -- one that focuses less on "the China threat" and more on how to benefit from new opportunities presented by China's rise.
GOP sees red over China (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55559.html) By Alexander Burns | Politico
America And China: Finding Cooperation, Avoiding Conflict? (http://blogs.forbes.com/dougbandow/2011/05/23/america-and-china-finding-cooperation-avoiding-conflict/) By Doug Bandow | Forbes
Henry Kissinger on China. Or Not.
Statesman Henry Kissinger takes a cautious view of Beijing's reaction to the Arab Spring, and U.S. relations with the world's rising power. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576321393783531506.html)
By BRET STEPHENS | Wall Street Journal
Kissinger and China (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/09/kissinger-and-china/) By Jonathan D. Spence | The New York Review of Books
Henry Kissinger’s On China (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/26/henry-kissinger%E2%80%99s-on-china/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
General Chen’s Assurance Not Entirely Reassuring (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/general-chen%E2%80%99s-assurance-not-entirely-reassuring-5351) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Skeptics
Go to China, young scientist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/go-to-china-young-scientist/2011/05/19/AFCY227G_story.html) By Matthew Stremlau | The Washington Post
No go
The Western politician who understands China best tries to explain it—but doesn’t quite succeed (http://www.economist.com/node/18709581)
The Economist
Europe Frets Over Trade Deficits With China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/economy/21charts.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | New York Times
China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/world/americas/27brazil.html) By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times
The global financial crisis catapulted China into a position of international economic leadership a decade earlier than Beijing's strategists had intended. That significantly increased the urgency of rebalancing the Chinese economy away from the low-quality, export model toward higher-value, domestically driven growth.
One consequence has been new and accelerated patterns of Chinese trade and investment abroad. For the United States, China's largest economic partner, the implications of this new multidirectionalism are significant. But with recent figures showing that bilateral investment between the two countries is contracting, the U.S. must adapt its approach to this issue to ensure it benefits from the forthcoming chapter in China's domestic growth story.
American investment and consumption were the two key drivers of China's economy in its early reform years. By the time the global financial crisis struck, China had amassed $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, and it has added another trillion since. The U.S. economy benefitted from cheap, inflation-suppressing Chinese goods, while China's absorption of American debt was a key facilitator of the pre-2008 credit bubble.
Beijing seemed content to watch the coffers swell, while largely ignoring the need to rebalance the Chinese economy and devise strategies for making use of its mounting foreign exchange reserves. But the post-crisis collapse of investment and demand from developed economies has forced China to mobilize newly acquired national wealth to maintain economic momentum.
China's overseas investment strategy was originally aimed at securing key natural resources. Recently, there has been a growing focus on importing advanced technology and machinery, particularly in "strategic sectors" identified in the 12th Five-Year Plan. International expansion is being led by increasingly cash-rich state-owned enterprises and their affiliates, with sovereign wealth vehicles such as China Investment Corporation and China Development Bank also adopting more active investment strategies.
But early indicators suggest the U.S. is missing out on the first wave of new Chinese overseas spending. As one recent report on the subject notes, "the main event in 2010 was a flood of [Chinese] money into the Western Hemisphere outside the U.S., led by Brazil but also featuring Canada, Argentina and Ecuador." Last year, China's total nonfinancial outbound direct investment (ODI) jumped 38 percent, to $60 billion, even as Chinese ODI to the U.S. contracted slightly, to just less than $6 billion. Inversely, April's foreign direct investment (FDI) into China was up by more than 15 percent on the year, but American FDI dropped 28 percent.
For China, the benefits of reducing asymmetric interdependence with the U.S. economy are clear, but it is less apparent whether the U.S. can currently afford to miss out on the huge opportunities presented by China's continued domestic growth and rapidly increasing overseas spending. Therefore, while the yuan remains a critical issue in bilateral relations, reaching consensus on the scale and scope of bilateral nonfinancial investment is an equally significant emerging topic. And although a series of diplomatic disputes in 2010 may have been partly to blame for depressed Chinese investment, the institutional arrangements of U.S.-China relations have generally failed to keep pace with China's rapid economic ascent.
Nowhere is this clearer than in bilateral investment agreements.
China is keen to expand its investments in the U.S. agricultural, natural resource, advanced manufacturing and financial sectors. But political resistance in the U.S. is high, and sources in Beijing claim that Washington is giving mixed signals over how welcome Chinese investment is. Chinese officials are seeking a list of acceptable investment areas from Washington and seem frustrated by the complex institutional arrangements of the U.S. political economy. Meanwhile, American officials have expressed concern about the security implications of Chinese capital, and a general lack of transparency on the Chinese side continues to exacerbate these fears.
Clearly, resolving these issues requires action from both sides. Washington must accept Chinese overseas investment as an economic reality going forward and design a strategy capable of deploying it in support of the national interest. The politicization of the yuan has damaged Washington's credibility in Beijing; avoiding a similar degeneration of legitimate debate on investment parameters must be a strategic priority. Washington should consider mechanisms for targeting Chinese capital in areas where it is needed most, such as urban real estate development and manufacturing. These need not amount to a centrally imposed directory, as produced annually by Beijing, but rather a semi-formal consensus that provides some kind of consistent framework for prospective Chinese investors.
Washington could also learn from the European Union's approach, which tends to maintain a greater distinction between ideological and economic policy differences with Beijing. Although the EU has the luxury of leaving political criticism to national governments, Brussels has been more low-key and consistent in discussions with Beijing on potentially inflammatory economic issues such as the yuan and China's "market economy" status. As a result, financial and nonfinancial economic integration between the two has increased substantially since 2008.
For its part, China must accept that poor standards of domestic corporate governance remain a major barrier to future economic development at home and abroad. The credibility of Chinese companies is undermined by opaque ownership structures and a general lack of transparency regarding strategic and commercial intentions. Notably, over the past five years, there has been a direct correlation between total Chinese investment in a given country and the volume of failed deals, regardless of the developmental level of the host nation. Moreover, foreign investment in China remains heavily regulated. Beijing must accept greater liberalization at home before it can push the issue too far with international partners.
Clearly, China has the responsibility to improve its domestic culture of openness and accountability. Greater and more symmetrical engagement with experienced capitalist nations can hasten this process while providing much-needed capital injections to the latters' ailing economies.
For the U.S., the central challenge is to formulate more consistent and strategically constructive responses to China's economic rise. That would entail initiating a paradigm shift in Washington -- one that focuses less on "the China threat" and more on how to benefit from new opportunities presented by China's rise.
GOP sees red over China (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55559.html) By Alexander Burns | Politico
America And China: Finding Cooperation, Avoiding Conflict? (http://blogs.forbes.com/dougbandow/2011/05/23/america-and-china-finding-cooperation-avoiding-conflict/) By Doug Bandow | Forbes
Henry Kissinger on China. Or Not.
Statesman Henry Kissinger takes a cautious view of Beijing's reaction to the Arab Spring, and U.S. relations with the world's rising power. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576321393783531506.html)
By BRET STEPHENS | Wall Street Journal
Kissinger and China (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/09/kissinger-and-china/) By Jonathan D. Spence | The New York Review of Books
Henry Kissinger’s On China (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/26/henry-kissinger%E2%80%99s-on-china/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
General Chen’s Assurance Not Entirely Reassuring (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/general-chen%E2%80%99s-assurance-not-entirely-reassuring-5351) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Skeptics
Go to China, young scientist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/go-to-china-young-scientist/2011/05/19/AFCY227G_story.html) By Matthew Stremlau | The Washington Post
No go
The Western politician who understands China best tries to explain it—but doesn’t quite succeed (http://www.economist.com/node/18709581)
The Economist
Europe Frets Over Trade Deficits With China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/economy/21charts.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | New York Times
China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/world/americas/27brazil.html) By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times
hot ERIC JUNGMANN has been cast as
rsdang
08-29 11:52 AM
The Indian Chief proclaims, "So, you are the great Lone Ranger. In honor of the Harvest Festival, you will be executed in three days. But, before I kill you, I will grant you three requests
What is your first request?"
The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse."
The Chief nods and Silver is brought before the Lone Ranger, who whispers in Silver's ear and the horse gallops away. Later that evening, Silver returns with a beautiful blonde woman on his back.
As the Indian Chief watches, the blonde enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night. !
The next morning the Indian Chief admits he's impressed. "You have a very fine and loyal horse but I will still kill you in two days. What is your second request?"
The Lone Ranger again asks to speak to his horse. Silver is brought to him, and he again whispers in the horse's ear. As before, Silver takes off across the plains and disappears over the horizon.
Later that evening, to the Chief's surprise, Silver again returns, this time with a brunette, even more attractive than the blonde. She enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night.
The following morning the Indian Chief is again impressed. ! "You are indeed a man of many talents but I still kill you tomorrow. "What is your last request?"
The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse....alone."
The Chief is curious but he agrees and Silver is brought to the Lone Ranger's tent.
Once they're alone, the Lone Ranger grabs Silver by both ears, looks him square in the eye and says, ; "Listen very carefully you dumb ass horse. For the last time . . . BRING POSSEE".
What is your first request?"
The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse."
The Chief nods and Silver is brought before the Lone Ranger, who whispers in Silver's ear and the horse gallops away. Later that evening, Silver returns with a beautiful blonde woman on his back.
As the Indian Chief watches, the blonde enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night. !
The next morning the Indian Chief admits he's impressed. "You have a very fine and loyal horse but I will still kill you in two days. What is your second request?"
The Lone Ranger again asks to speak to his horse. Silver is brought to him, and he again whispers in the horse's ear. As before, Silver takes off across the plains and disappears over the horizon.
Later that evening, to the Chief's surprise, Silver again returns, this time with a brunette, even more attractive than the blonde. She enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night.
The following morning the Indian Chief is again impressed. ! "You are indeed a man of many talents but I still kill you tomorrow. "What is your last request?"
The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse....alone."
The Chief is curious but he agrees and Silver is brought to the Lone Ranger's tent.
Once they're alone, the Lone Ranger grabs Silver by both ears, looks him square in the eye and says, ; "Listen very carefully you dumb ass horse. For the last time . . . BRING POSSEE".
more...
house true blood eric northman short
puddonhead
06-07 10:27 AM
If you look at the details I posted, only $1050 goes to interest, insurance, and taxes. $400 goes to the principal. So, compared that to my $1200 rental, it is still wise choice. Isn't it?
As per Zillow estimate, the value of the house I bought already appreciated by $10k above the purchase price.
For the sake of discussion that it did not appreciate in the next 10 years (which I doubt because there's no other way to go but up) but the value stayed at purchase price, as per my amortization schedule, my loan would be at 75% of the purchase value. It means therefore that I already have a 25% equity of the house, which is $60k.
If I saved the $250 per month at zero interest, I would have $30k. I don't know where you can find 5% interest p.a. investment today but for the sake of argument that I found one, I think I can't get the $60k at the end of 10th yr.
Off topic - but I hope you have done a proper inspection with an independent inspection agency.
99% of all Houses built after 2000 (i.e. during the boom time) are notorious for bad build quality. Chinese Drywall (http://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+drywall) anyone?
As per Zillow estimate, the value of the house I bought already appreciated by $10k above the purchase price.
For the sake of discussion that it did not appreciate in the next 10 years (which I doubt because there's no other way to go but up) but the value stayed at purchase price, as per my amortization schedule, my loan would be at 75% of the purchase value. It means therefore that I already have a 25% equity of the house, which is $60k.
If I saved the $250 per month at zero interest, I would have $30k. I don't know where you can find 5% interest p.a. investment today but for the sake of argument that I found one, I think I can't get the $60k at the end of 10th yr.
Off topic - but I hope you have done a proper inspection with an independent inspection agency.
99% of all Houses built after 2000 (i.e. during the boom time) are notorious for bad build quality. Chinese Drywall (http://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+drywall) anyone?
tattoo hair true blood cast eric.
akred
08-06 01:26 PM
Seems to me that the problem as usual is that too many people qualify for EB2 thus slowing down "genuine" cases.
The solution to this is in the hands of the DOL. DOL can reduce the number of people qualifying for EB2 by simply doing away with the "business necessity" exception.
In other words without this exception, people will qualify for EB2 only if their field requires an advanced degree due to law (e.g. doctors) or if an advanced degree is customary in the profession (e.g. academia). This will reduce the flow to EB2 by disqualifying the large number of professions where an advanced degree is merely discretionary and not mandatory (e.g. MS, MBA)
But this is a very draconian measure and hopefully does not come into play.
The solution to this is in the hands of the DOL. DOL can reduce the number of people qualifying for EB2 by simply doing away with the "business necessity" exception.
In other words without this exception, people will qualify for EB2 only if their field requires an advanced degree due to law (e.g. doctors) or if an advanced degree is customary in the profession (e.g. academia). This will reduce the flow to EB2 by disqualifying the large number of professions where an advanced degree is merely discretionary and not mandatory (e.g. MS, MBA)
But this is a very draconian measure and hopefully does not come into play.
more...
pictures True Blood - Eric makes a
paragpujara
08-06 02:37 PM
One Chinese person walks into a bar in America late one night and he
saw Steven Spielberg.
As he was a great fan of his movies, he rushes over to him, and asks
for his autograph.
Instead, Spielberg gives him a slap and says, "You Chinese people
bombed our Pearl Harbor, get outta here.
"The astonished Chinese man replied, "It was not the Chinese who bombed
your Pearl Harbor, it was the Japanese".
"Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, you're all the same," replied Spielberg.
In return, the Chinese gives Spielberg a slap and says, "You sank the
Titanic, my forefathers were on that ship.
"Shocked, Spielberg replies, "It was the iceberg that sank the ship,
not me."
The Chinese replies, "Iceberg, Spielberg, Carlsberg, you're all the
same."
This particular joke won an award for the best joke in a competition
organized in Britain and this joke was sent by an Indian.
saw Steven Spielberg.
As he was a great fan of his movies, he rushes over to him, and asks
for his autograph.
Instead, Spielberg gives him a slap and says, "You Chinese people
bombed our Pearl Harbor, get outta here.
"The astonished Chinese man replied, "It was not the Chinese who bombed
your Pearl Harbor, it was the Japanese".
"Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, you're all the same," replied Spielberg.
In return, the Chinese gives Spielberg a slap and says, "You sank the
Titanic, my forefathers were on that ship.
"Shocked, Spielberg replies, "It was the iceberg that sank the ship,
not me."
The Chinese replies, "Iceberg, Spielberg, Carlsberg, you're all the
same."
This particular joke won an award for the best joke in a competition
organized in Britain and this joke was sent by an Indian.
dresses #39;True Blood#39; Creator, Cast
Macaca
12-29 07:52 PM
Foreign dignitaries chafe at TSA policies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205461.html) By Colum Lynch | Washington Post
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's ambassador to the United Nations, last month ran headfirst into a controversial new Transportation Security Administration inspection policy for many foreign travelers.
At the airport in Austin, TSA agents demanded to inspect his turban. Puri is a Sikh, whose religion requires that the turban, or dastar, be worn in public to cover uncut hair. Puri refused the TSA order, citing an agency exception that allows Sikhs to pat down their own turbans to avoid intrusive searches and then have their hands tested for possible explosives.
The situation escalated when TSA agents initially ignored Puri's protestations and said they would decide what the rules are, according to an official traveling with the ambassador.
Puri told an Indian newspaper that the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes after he asked a supervisor to intervene.
The incident underscores the sometimes bumpy relationship between the TSA and foreign delegations traveling to the United States in an era of heightened security.
Diplomats are required to submit to searches, which intensified for many foreign travelers to the United States in January. The TSA put in place special procedures for greater scrutiny of individuals from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, prompting complaints from Muslim governments. (India was not on the list.)
In April, "enhanced random security measures" for all passengers were put into effect - including pat-downs, sniffing dogs and more rigorous explosives testing. And last month, the TSA approved even more invasive body searches, which posed particularly sensitive issues for passengers with certain religious beliefs and medical issues.
For globe-trotting diplomats, the U.S. government has offered since 2007 a list of "tips" to help them get through "the screening process easily and efficiently." It advises foreign dignitaries to carry two sets of credentials and warns that "screening may include a hand-wanding procedure and pat-down inspection." Searches, the memo says, will be conducted out of public view.
The episode involving Puri has roiled sensibilities in India, where Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna complained this month about the TSA's pat-downs of Meera Shankar, the country's ambassador to the United States. Krishna said Shankar was frisked twice in three months, most recently when she was pulled aside at the Jackson, Miss., airport and subjected to a body search by a female TSA agent.
"Let me be very frank that this is unacceptable," Krishna said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the State Department would look into the matter and try to take steps to avoid such international incidents.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement: "The threat to aviation is a global challenge and every airport in the world is wrestling with how to best protect the flying public with as little friction as possible. We are all in this together. Our citizens are affected and those of other countries. Our diplomats are impacted, so are the diplomats of other countries. These situations in this country are certainly not unique."
A TSA spokesman defended the treatment of Puri and Shankar. The overwhelming majority of 2 million U.S. air travelers, the official said, have had a positive experience using the nation's airports.
Puri "was not required to remove his turban, and our officers worked with him to complete screening according to established procedures," said spokesman Nicholas Kimball. "We will continue working with our officers to reinforce all established policies, including those pertaining to the respectful screening of religious headwear and clothing."
Kimball also said that a review of Shankar's pat-down in Jackson demonstrated that the TSA agents "followed proper procedure."
"United States airport security policies accommodate those individuals with religious, medical or other reasons for which the passenger cannot or wishes not to remove a certain item of clothing," Kimball added. "For religious headwear, a passenger can pat the item down themselves and then have their hand tested for traces of explosive residue."
In March, a State Department goodwill tour of the United States for a delegation of Pakistani lawmakers backfired after the group was asked to submit to additional screening on a flight from Washington to New Orleans. The lawmakers refused to board. The Pakistani army recalled a military delegation from Washington after the officers were subjected to what it called "unwarranted" searches.
Many of the incidents involve domestic flights at airports where TSA agents may have less exposure to foreign fliers than those at major international airports. One U.N. official, an American citizen of South Asian extraction, traveling with his American wife and children, said he often gets pulled aside for pat-downs and "random searches."
He said his youngest daughter recently recalled her memories of a flight: "I remember, we go on the airplane, and I take my shoes off, and you take your shoes off, and the men take Papa away and touch him everywhere," the girl told her mother.
But other diplomats from South Asia say they have had no trouble with the TSA.
Anwarul Chowdhury, a former Bangladeshi ambassador to the United Nations, said he has traveled without problems for more than a decade as a foreign and U.N. official. He recently returned from a trip to Spain without incident. "We had smooth sailing," he said. "My wife also wears a sari all the time. I don't wear a turban, but I think they were extremely courteous, very nice."
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's ambassador to the United Nations, last month ran headfirst into a controversial new Transportation Security Administration inspection policy for many foreign travelers.
At the airport in Austin, TSA agents demanded to inspect his turban. Puri is a Sikh, whose religion requires that the turban, or dastar, be worn in public to cover uncut hair. Puri refused the TSA order, citing an agency exception that allows Sikhs to pat down their own turbans to avoid intrusive searches and then have their hands tested for possible explosives.
The situation escalated when TSA agents initially ignored Puri's protestations and said they would decide what the rules are, according to an official traveling with the ambassador.
Puri told an Indian newspaper that the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes after he asked a supervisor to intervene.
The incident underscores the sometimes bumpy relationship between the TSA and foreign delegations traveling to the United States in an era of heightened security.
Diplomats are required to submit to searches, which intensified for many foreign travelers to the United States in January. The TSA put in place special procedures for greater scrutiny of individuals from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, prompting complaints from Muslim governments. (India was not on the list.)
In April, "enhanced random security measures" for all passengers were put into effect - including pat-downs, sniffing dogs and more rigorous explosives testing. And last month, the TSA approved even more invasive body searches, which posed particularly sensitive issues for passengers with certain religious beliefs and medical issues.
For globe-trotting diplomats, the U.S. government has offered since 2007 a list of "tips" to help them get through "the screening process easily and efficiently." It advises foreign dignitaries to carry two sets of credentials and warns that "screening may include a hand-wanding procedure and pat-down inspection." Searches, the memo says, will be conducted out of public view.
The episode involving Puri has roiled sensibilities in India, where Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna complained this month about the TSA's pat-downs of Meera Shankar, the country's ambassador to the United States. Krishna said Shankar was frisked twice in three months, most recently when she was pulled aside at the Jackson, Miss., airport and subjected to a body search by a female TSA agent.
"Let me be very frank that this is unacceptable," Krishna said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the State Department would look into the matter and try to take steps to avoid such international incidents.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement: "The threat to aviation is a global challenge and every airport in the world is wrestling with how to best protect the flying public with as little friction as possible. We are all in this together. Our citizens are affected and those of other countries. Our diplomats are impacted, so are the diplomats of other countries. These situations in this country are certainly not unique."
A TSA spokesman defended the treatment of Puri and Shankar. The overwhelming majority of 2 million U.S. air travelers, the official said, have had a positive experience using the nation's airports.
Puri "was not required to remove his turban, and our officers worked with him to complete screening according to established procedures," said spokesman Nicholas Kimball. "We will continue working with our officers to reinforce all established policies, including those pertaining to the respectful screening of religious headwear and clothing."
Kimball also said that a review of Shankar's pat-down in Jackson demonstrated that the TSA agents "followed proper procedure."
"United States airport security policies accommodate those individuals with religious, medical or other reasons for which the passenger cannot or wishes not to remove a certain item of clothing," Kimball added. "For religious headwear, a passenger can pat the item down themselves and then have their hand tested for traces of explosive residue."
In March, a State Department goodwill tour of the United States for a delegation of Pakistani lawmakers backfired after the group was asked to submit to additional screening on a flight from Washington to New Orleans. The lawmakers refused to board. The Pakistani army recalled a military delegation from Washington after the officers were subjected to what it called "unwarranted" searches.
Many of the incidents involve domestic flights at airports where TSA agents may have less exposure to foreign fliers than those at major international airports. One U.N. official, an American citizen of South Asian extraction, traveling with his American wife and children, said he often gets pulled aside for pat-downs and "random searches."
He said his youngest daughter recently recalled her memories of a flight: "I remember, we go on the airplane, and I take my shoes off, and you take your shoes off, and the men take Papa away and touch him everywhere," the girl told her mother.
But other diplomats from South Asia say they have had no trouble with the TSA.
Anwarul Chowdhury, a former Bangladeshi ambassador to the United Nations, said he has traveled without problems for more than a decade as a foreign and U.N. official. He recently returned from a trip to Spain without incident. "We had smooth sailing," he said. "My wife also wears a sari all the time. I don't wear a turban, but I think they were extremely courteous, very nice."
more...
makeup 2011 True Blood Cast Confirms:
unitednations
08-02 11:57 AM
I am on H1 since 1999 with same employer except for a long interval of 16 months. I filed my labor in April 2001 (assuming 245(i) will cover me). I was not on payroll during Aug 03 to Dec 04. So my W2 for 2003 is 33% less than LCA and no W2 for 2004. I last entered US in Sept. 03
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
girlfriend true blood cast eric.
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
hairstyles true blood wallpaper for
NKR
08-05 08:26 PM
What does it have to do with immigration lines?.
Exactly, how does your below statement fall within the immigration lines?..
I believe you missed the entire point.
Whether you have money or not is irrelevant nonsense. This is like complaining that you are married so cannot have a girlfriend- that is your problem pal. Make your own choices, don't blame others for them.
Now, answer the question- why are the years spent in MS/PhD not getting any credit? .
This is what you need to be asking and fighting for, do not say that since you are not getting benefits then let EB3 guys also not get any benefit. It is like saying that since I do not have a girl friend neither should others. Two wrongs won’t make a right.
If you and I both came in 2000, and I did a PhD and you worked..(this is not that far from my story- so it's not completely fictional), your PD might be 2002 and mine may be 2007. Now you are as close to current in EB3 as I am in EB2. Now if you jump to EB2 without porting), you would be 2008 (or even 2006) and given faster movement in EB2 you benefit. If you jump with porting, I'm totally screwed. You are way ahead of me simply because I chose to get the degree. Does it begin to make any sense? You are asking for the ability to get a GC because you have waited "x years". So HAVE I!!!!
Except that my PD does not reflect it like yours. If you still insist you have first right...well that's your opinion. .
Some people do not port, they directly apply for EB2 (this is not that far from my story- so it's not completely fictional) but I do know people whose PD is early 2002 and still waiting just because they filed in EB3 for some reason and if they want to port, I completely understand.
Exactly, how does your below statement fall within the immigration lines?..
I believe you missed the entire point.
Whether you have money or not is irrelevant nonsense. This is like complaining that you are married so cannot have a girlfriend- that is your problem pal. Make your own choices, don't blame others for them.
Now, answer the question- why are the years spent in MS/PhD not getting any credit? .
This is what you need to be asking and fighting for, do not say that since you are not getting benefits then let EB3 guys also not get any benefit. It is like saying that since I do not have a girl friend neither should others. Two wrongs won’t make a right.
If you and I both came in 2000, and I did a PhD and you worked..(this is not that far from my story- so it's not completely fictional), your PD might be 2002 and mine may be 2007. Now you are as close to current in EB3 as I am in EB2. Now if you jump to EB2 without porting), you would be 2008 (or even 2006) and given faster movement in EB2 you benefit. If you jump with porting, I'm totally screwed. You are way ahead of me simply because I chose to get the degree. Does it begin to make any sense? You are asking for the ability to get a GC because you have waited "x years". So HAVE I!!!!
Except that my PD does not reflect it like yours. If you still insist you have first right...well that's your opinion. .
Some people do not port, they directly apply for EB2 (this is not that far from my story- so it's not completely fictional) but I do know people whose PD is early 2002 and still waiting just because they filed in EB3 for some reason and if they want to port, I completely understand.
vallabhu
04-06 11:52 PM
My understanding H1 B employers (mostly desi companies) are root cause of this situation by abusing H1 b program, they have made enough money by sucking H1 employees blood, now hey are equally affected it is time for them to share some of it and fund all the efforts to curb these kind of Bills.
Please forward the text of this bill to all your employers and ask them to join hands with IV.
Please forward the text of this bill to all your employers and ask them to join hands with IV.
ssa
06-23 05:16 PM
in agreement.....there is definately pleasure in living in your own house....
Ask current underwater home owners how much pleasure are they deriving from their owned home. Day to day pleasure of living may come from the size and the quality/amenities of the house you stay in, whether you own it or rent it is immaterial. If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it? Plus "owned" house is a little bit of misnomer here. Unless you have paid it off 100% it's not really your own. Rental property is owned by landlords and your "owned" home is in reality owned by your bank. Miss couple of payments and net results are very similar.
Don't get me wrong. In rational market owning home is the easiest way to build up wealth but I can't stress the "rational" part of it enough. Although in most areas the excesses of housing bubble are washed away by now in some areas (like good school districts in Bay Area) the prices are still not aligned with the fundamentals like rents for similar properties and average annual incomes. Also renting has one huge advantage right now in this era of rapidly rising unemployment. You are mobile. You can easily move wherever you can find your next job.
In long run it is always better (IMHO) to own than to rent. But in the short term - for next 1-2 years - I see no compelling argument to buy home unless you land a steal somehow. Sentimental red herrings like "pride and joy" of ownership is definitely not a way to go about making the biggest financial decision of your life. The fact that realtors use this exact phase so often should give you a clue!
Ask current underwater home owners how much pleasure are they deriving from their owned home. Day to day pleasure of living may come from the size and the quality/amenities of the house you stay in, whether you own it or rent it is immaterial. If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it? Plus "owned" house is a little bit of misnomer here. Unless you have paid it off 100% it's not really your own. Rental property is owned by landlords and your "owned" home is in reality owned by your bank. Miss couple of payments and net results are very similar.
Don't get me wrong. In rational market owning home is the easiest way to build up wealth but I can't stress the "rational" part of it enough. Although in most areas the excesses of housing bubble are washed away by now in some areas (like good school districts in Bay Area) the prices are still not aligned with the fundamentals like rents for similar properties and average annual incomes. Also renting has one huge advantage right now in this era of rapidly rising unemployment. You are mobile. You can easily move wherever you can find your next job.
In long run it is always better (IMHO) to own than to rent. But in the short term - for next 1-2 years - I see no compelling argument to buy home unless you land a steal somehow. Sentimental red herrings like "pride and joy" of ownership is definitely not a way to go about making the biggest financial decision of your life. The fact that realtors use this exact phase so often should give you a clue!
No comments:
Post a Comment