snathan
01-06 05:15 PM
Didn't Narendra Modi followed the footstep of Isreali counterparts by killing innocents in Gujarat?
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
Modi is the need of the hour andnot Gandhi....Grow up man.
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
Modi is the need of the hour andnot Gandhi....Grow up man.
wallpaper Background Check Form (Use
vdlrao
07-14 01:03 PM
I presume EB2 India will be current by next October. Till now for EB2 India there are only 1/3 of 7% of 140K visas which are 3,266. Due to the new change of horizontal fall outs EB2 India exclusively getting about 32k visas, very little share to china. So this change making an availability of about 30k aditional visas to EB2 India along with regular 3,266. So total About 32K visas for EB2 India. This includes unused Family Visa Numbers as well. So from now on EB2 India getting almost 10 times more visas.
And due to the change to Horizontal Fall out of Visa Numbers from Vertical Fall outs, Its not the India which loses but its EB3 ROW.
And due to the change to Horizontal Fall out of Visa Numbers from Vertical Fall outs, Its not the India which loses but its EB3 ROW.
fromnaija
08-02 11:40 AM
Actually, USCIS does nothing with the Consulate copy of G-325 if applicant has been in the USA for more than one year. You can find this fact in the I-485 Adjudicator's manual.
No; it is not fraud. I have seen many g-325a's and many people seem to miss last address outside usa for more then one year and last occupation for more then one year outside usa.
There are many uses for this. If you look at the bottom left hand corner of g-325a there is some annotations to it. One of the g-325a's get sent to the consulate. Now; what does the consulate do with it???? Do they compare it with your original visa application of what your last occupation/address was?
One of the other uses of this information is that a person could have come to usa 8 years ago but you only need to show 5 years of biographical information. USCIS can then calculate when you really came into the country and see if you maintained the status ever since you left your foreign residence.
No; it is not fraud. I have seen many g-325a's and many people seem to miss last address outside usa for more then one year and last occupation for more then one year outside usa.
There are many uses for this. If you look at the bottom left hand corner of g-325a there is some annotations to it. One of the g-325a's get sent to the consulate. Now; what does the consulate do with it???? Do they compare it with your original visa application of what your last occupation/address was?
One of the other uses of this information is that a person could have come to usa 8 years ago but you only need to show 5 years of biographical information. USCIS can then calculate when you really came into the country and see if you maintained the status ever since you left your foreign residence.
2011 Background Check Database
lfwf
08-06 03:38 PM
Dude, I did not personally bash anyone let alone give you a red dot, I was just putting forth my opinions which you and some of our ilk did not like which is fair enough.
You guys saying guys with Masters are from heaven compared to EB3 guys getting 5+ years experience is like personally bashing each and everyone who falls in that category.
You repeatedly insist on looking at things that way. No one is from heaven and no one is precluding Bs+5 from applying for EB2. They should, why not?
The question is only: Is it fair for them to get that entire 5 years in their PD as a jump on those who filed EB2 after an advanced degree. That's it. Nothing more or less than that. Please don't read needless nonsense into this. I have no interest in inferior, superior, holier, more genuine etc.
Nor am i bashing experience and all that. the question simply whether the advantage for going from EB3 to Eb2 should be magnified by allowing the old PD to be ported with it. This kind of situation puts people like me (7 years of education! multiple degrees...) at a serious disadvantage. We would potentially have to wait for every single EB3 that came to the US >5 years ago (even well after we came) to get their GC before ever standing a chance.
Because they would all be BS+5....and we can't match their PDs. And we have waited as long or more.
You guys saying guys with Masters are from heaven compared to EB3 guys getting 5+ years experience is like personally bashing each and everyone who falls in that category.
You repeatedly insist on looking at things that way. No one is from heaven and no one is precluding Bs+5 from applying for EB2. They should, why not?
The question is only: Is it fair for them to get that entire 5 years in their PD as a jump on those who filed EB2 after an advanced degree. That's it. Nothing more or less than that. Please don't read needless nonsense into this. I have no interest in inferior, superior, holier, more genuine etc.
Nor am i bashing experience and all that. the question simply whether the advantage for going from EB3 to Eb2 should be magnified by allowing the old PD to be ported with it. This kind of situation puts people like me (7 years of education! multiple degrees...) at a serious disadvantage. We would potentially have to wait for every single EB3 that came to the US >5 years ago (even well after we came) to get their GC before ever standing a chance.
Because they would all be BS+5....and we can't match their PDs. And we have waited as long or more.
more...
desi3933
07-11 10:57 AM
Yes H1B is NOT Stamped yet.
You can try getting visa from Canada/Mexico, but if visa is denied one has to fly home country to get visa from. You can not re-enter US if visa is denied in Canada/Mexico.
Do you have degree from US? In that case, it may be helpful.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
You can try getting visa from Canada/Mexico, but if visa is denied one has to fly home country to get visa from. You can not re-enter US if visa is denied in Canada/Mexico.
Do you have degree from US? In that case, it may be helpful.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
anandrajesh
01-28 12:16 PM
Why should anybody listen to this guy? This guy doesnt really represent the facts.
The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.
The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.
more...
funny
09-30 03:05 PM
How hard is it to figure out that people used AC21 and moved to another company, so the previous employer is out of the picture?. Why should the previous employer�s ability to pay matter?.
Beacuse somehow USCIS is not looking into AC21 documentation also most of the time you don't even know that your AC21 letter has been places in your file or not, on the other hand when an employer send out the revocation request it seems to reached USCIS and they deny the 485 with out calculating that its been 180 days since 485 is pending and also suppose a company filed 100 485 caes in July 2007 out of those 20 has changed the Job using Ac21, now the company is filing for 20 news GCs and in the I140 stage recievs rfe for Ability to Pay, the company will have to prove the A2Pay for 120 people as oppose to only 100 ( 80 old + 20 new) , so the lawyers must be suggesting to tell USCIS that the 20 people are not on our list and we should not be asked to prove Ability to PAY for these and hence the revocation and a 485 deniel. The only issue here is that USCIS acts quickly on I140 revocation cases becuase it reduces on case from the workload and they don't bother to calculate when was 180 days done for the poor guy.
does this make sense, I will like to know what other people think about it.
Beacuse somehow USCIS is not looking into AC21 documentation also most of the time you don't even know that your AC21 letter has been places in your file or not, on the other hand when an employer send out the revocation request it seems to reached USCIS and they deny the 485 with out calculating that its been 180 days since 485 is pending and also suppose a company filed 100 485 caes in July 2007 out of those 20 has changed the Job using Ac21, now the company is filing for 20 news GCs and in the I140 stage recievs rfe for Ability to Pay, the company will have to prove the A2Pay for 120 people as oppose to only 100 ( 80 old + 20 new) , so the lawyers must be suggesting to tell USCIS that the 20 people are not on our list and we should not be asked to prove Ability to PAY for these and hence the revocation and a 485 deniel. The only issue here is that USCIS acts quickly on I140 revocation cases becuase it reduces on case from the workload and they don't bother to calculate when was 180 days done for the poor guy.
does this make sense, I will like to know what other people think about it.
2010 ackground check consent
GCOP
07-13 01:31 PM
I agree. We have involved in IV action Item. It is Simply our Hard Luck that, we all (EB3-I)are stuck in this situation. IV has tried for Bill every Single year Since about Last 3 Years, Organized rally. Nothing worked out for us. In the mean time EB-2 moved to 2006 and EB-3 is Still in 2001. I believe it is just our hard luck, that despite of all IV efforts & Our support to IV , No Result for Eb-3 Forward movement. NOW THE QUESTION IS WHICH ACTIONS CAN BRING THE RESULTS FOR EB-3 (I)
Guys I am getting the impression that EB-3- I did not act on IV action items..that's not true we have been actively involved in IV action items and have been contributing...
Guys I am getting the impression that EB-3- I did not act on IV action items..that's not true we have been actively involved in IV action items and have been contributing...
more...
file485
07-09 12:07 PM
UN..after I read your story..
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
hair School - Background Check
engineer
01-03 12:31 AM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
more...
Gravitation
03-25 03:59 PM
Could you explain property tax a little more? i.e. when you own it what % of your house is the tax? Is it a state tax? Is it fed deductible?
Property tax is paid to the town you live in. It pays for the public schools (primary and secondary education). If your town provides trash collection services etc, all that comes from property tax. It's usually different for residential and commercial and industrial properties. Typically, the better the schools in a town, the more is the property tax.
Percentage is determined by the town/city. For the purpose of this tax, town determines what is called "assessed value" of a property. This is done by the town-clerk by simply looking at the specifications of the property (lot size, number of bedrooms, living space, etc). This assessed value can sometimes vary wildly from the market-price. The assessed values are usually adjusted to match the town/city budget. it's not even intended to be anywhere near the market-price.
Just for an example, my house is worth $540,000 (market price), the tax is $6000/year.
Yes. property tax is fed deductible. I save ~$1000/month in fed taxes. Most of the mortgage loan payment is interest in the beginning and that's also tax deductible. My mortgage+property tax+insurance is about $2400. I used to pay $1500 in rent. For me, the only real financial implication of buying a house has been in the form of: New Furniture, increased heating bill and lawn-care. In lieu of that it has four times as much living space, a acre+plus flat yard for my son to play in. On the flip side, it's far out in the suburb. BTW, I put 25% down, otherwise my mortgage payment would have been higher.
Buying a house is not everybody's cup of tea. but it can work very well for some, depending on requirements, taste and future plans.
Property tax is paid to the town you live in. It pays for the public schools (primary and secondary education). If your town provides trash collection services etc, all that comes from property tax. It's usually different for residential and commercial and industrial properties. Typically, the better the schools in a town, the more is the property tax.
Percentage is determined by the town/city. For the purpose of this tax, town determines what is called "assessed value" of a property. This is done by the town-clerk by simply looking at the specifications of the property (lot size, number of bedrooms, living space, etc). This assessed value can sometimes vary wildly from the market-price. The assessed values are usually adjusted to match the town/city budget. it's not even intended to be anywhere near the market-price.
Just for an example, my house is worth $540,000 (market price), the tax is $6000/year.
Yes. property tax is fed deductible. I save ~$1000/month in fed taxes. Most of the mortgage loan payment is interest in the beginning and that's also tax deductible. My mortgage+property tax+insurance is about $2400. I used to pay $1500 in rent. For me, the only real financial implication of buying a house has been in the form of: New Furniture, increased heating bill and lawn-care. In lieu of that it has four times as much living space, a acre+plus flat yard for my son to play in. On the flip side, it's far out in the suburb. BTW, I put 25% down, otherwise my mortgage payment would have been higher.
Buying a house is not everybody's cup of tea. but it can work very well for some, depending on requirements, taste and future plans.
hot normal ackground check
desi3933
08-05 04:33 PM
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
.....
.....
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Are you Rolling_Flood?
Law is what it is. It is not what you believe is correct.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
.....
.....
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Are you Rolling_Flood?
Law is what it is. It is not what you believe is correct.
more...
house ackground check forms.
sc3
07-13 04:10 AM
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Thanks!. I was in the process of writing to the Ombudsman about the allotment system change, and the reasons behind it. If I dont hear back, I intend to write to my congresswoman / senator about it.
So while I was thinking what to write, your draft is very helpful in making my final letter. I hope everyone starts writing mails to the ombudsman about the problem.
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Thanks!. I was in the process of writing to the Ombudsman about the allotment system change, and the reasons behind it. If I dont hear back, I intend to write to my congresswoman / senator about it.
So while I was thinking what to write, your draft is very helpful in making my final letter. I hope everyone starts writing mails to the ombudsman about the problem.
tattoo Background Check Form
pete
04-09 11:51 AM
As is true with everything else it cannot be all gain.
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
pete,
i am a physician and in the same boat as you. my employer searched high and dry before i came along. but you are missing something here. except universities that can hire the "best candidate", every other employer has to employ a citizen/gc applicant with the "minimum qualifications for the job". please revisit the rules if you do not understand this. your talent and extra skills count for nothing. employers cannot take the best applicant...if an LCA is needed. this is a very significant problem if applied to H1B renewals. Any tom dick and harry can displace you every 3 years. think about it please, not just your own situation. i am strongly in favor of H1B reform. i believe that this if linked with a bill like strive dramatically increase support for retrogression relief. however the reform needs to be thought through carefully. a 6 mnth LCA process for each renewal would kill us. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
pete,
i am a physician and in the same boat as you. my employer searched high and dry before i came along. but you are missing something here. except universities that can hire the "best candidate", every other employer has to employ a citizen/gc applicant with the "minimum qualifications for the job". please revisit the rules if you do not understand this. your talent and extra skills count for nothing. employers cannot take the best applicant...if an LCA is needed. this is a very significant problem if applied to H1B renewals. Any tom dick and harry can displace you every 3 years. think about it please, not just your own situation. i am strongly in favor of H1B reform. i believe that this if linked with a bill like strive dramatically increase support for retrogression relief. however the reform needs to be thought through carefully. a 6 mnth LCA process for each renewal would kill us. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
more...
pictures by a ackground check form
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
dresses Criminal Background Check
puddonhead
06-07 06:22 PM
I think it really is a matter of personal choice. A house is much more than a mere investment. For people like us it adds another layer of complications
due to our status (or rather...lack of status).
We are in Bay Area (San Jose Metro area) and were paying around $2000 in rent. We just bought a condo where our payments (mortgage + Taxes + HoA) are going
to be around 2300. Hopefully we will be getting back around 400-500 in taxes and this makes it a good deal. However only 15 days after moving into our
new house, I was laid off and now our biggest concern is if I am not able to get a job in next few weeks and if we have to go back we will be almost
80k down the hole.
Personally I would wait till 2012 beginning to consider getting into Cali, Las Vegas, Florida markets. The neg-am/interest-only bubble (BusinessWeek Article (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/jun2008/bw2008065_526168.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)) is just beginning to burst with their interest rates resetting, and wont peak until late 2011. This bubble is just as big as the sub-prime one (in terms of dollar value - around USD 0.5 - 1.5 Trillion) and will probably have much higher default rate (north of 50% by all estimates I have seen so far). These loans were originated to make the high priced homes in these area affordable. So it will hit the middle class to aspirational neighborhoods the most - unlike the sub-primes, which mostly hit the lower income areas.
I don't mean to sound disheartening - just want to provide info and interpretation as I see it so that people can avoid getting into this trap.
Personally, I am also surprised/uncomfortable that the prices in the NY Metro Area has not come down so much even though all the indicators (rent/price ratio, affordability) are way off base and getting worse with rents heading south. I don't know how these ratios will correct themselves (the neg-am mess is unlikely to hit this area too much) - but my intuition tells me that it has to. If anybody more knowledgeable can add more insights then that will be great.
due to our status (or rather...lack of status).
We are in Bay Area (San Jose Metro area) and were paying around $2000 in rent. We just bought a condo where our payments (mortgage + Taxes + HoA) are going
to be around 2300. Hopefully we will be getting back around 400-500 in taxes and this makes it a good deal. However only 15 days after moving into our
new house, I was laid off and now our biggest concern is if I am not able to get a job in next few weeks and if we have to go back we will be almost
80k down the hole.
Personally I would wait till 2012 beginning to consider getting into Cali, Las Vegas, Florida markets. The neg-am/interest-only bubble (BusinessWeek Article (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/jun2008/bw2008065_526168.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)) is just beginning to burst with their interest rates resetting, and wont peak until late 2011. This bubble is just as big as the sub-prime one (in terms of dollar value - around USD 0.5 - 1.5 Trillion) and will probably have much higher default rate (north of 50% by all estimates I have seen so far). These loans were originated to make the high priced homes in these area affordable. So it will hit the middle class to aspirational neighborhoods the most - unlike the sub-primes, which mostly hit the lower income areas.
I don't mean to sound disheartening - just want to provide info and interpretation as I see it so that people can avoid getting into this trap.
Personally, I am also surprised/uncomfortable that the prices in the NY Metro Area has not come down so much even though all the indicators (rent/price ratio, affordability) are way off base and getting worse with rents heading south. I don't know how these ratios will correct themselves (the neg-am mess is unlikely to hit this area too much) - but my intuition tells me that it has to. If anybody more knowledgeable can add more insights then that will be great.
more...
makeup Background Check Form
mbawa2574
09-26 11:11 AM
Though I like Obama as a person who promises positive change, I am afraid this will turn into disaster for all of us. Obama in white house to me translates into 'Curtains' for all legal high skilled immigration.
If all of you had watched the drama unfolding last year with CIR and Durbin's proposed draconic measures you will all know what is in store for us. We all know who will be pulling the strings as far as immigration policy making goes with democrats in the white house.
Mccain is good for us as long as he seperates himself from house republicans. Obama is good if he gets rid of that stupid durban.
Though Mccain is business friendly. There are talks on CNBC and Wallstreet about rebuidling capital in this country and skilled immigration is part of it. I think Michele..I don't know last name wrote an article in Wall Street Journal Today supporting Legal Immigration , innovation and creating demand for housing in this country. It's the protectionist lobby which is screwing the country.
If all of you had watched the drama unfolding last year with CIR and Durbin's proposed draconic measures you will all know what is in store for us. We all know who will be pulling the strings as far as immigration policy making goes with democrats in the white house.
Mccain is good for us as long as he seperates himself from house republicans. Obama is good if he gets rid of that stupid durban.
Though Mccain is business friendly. There are talks on CNBC and Wallstreet about rebuidling capital in this country and skilled immigration is part of it. I think Michele..I don't know last name wrote an article in Wall Street Journal Today supporting Legal Immigration , innovation and creating demand for housing in this country. It's the protectionist lobby which is screwing the country.
girlfriend Background Check
singhsa3
12-27 10:26 AM
Macca,
Our is an adovacy group comprising of only volunteers and with specific agenda. There may be several other Advocacy groups with similar characteristics as ours, agreed they may or may not be immigration focussed. Thus, examples of such Advocay groups that had to lobby to change laws in their favor , overcoming oppositions will help.
For such advocacy groups , do you have any insights into the following ( Based on your readings or research)?
a) What such group do to increase active participation of their members?
b) How such groups are organized?
c) How the short term and long term goals are developed/identified?
d) How the leadership pieline for such groups is developed?
e) Best practices when interacting with other like minded groups, without undermining their own agenda.
If you would like to discuss on the phone or through e-mail. Thas should be fine with me.
Thanks
Singhsa3
Our is an adovacy group comprising of only volunteers and with specific agenda. There may be several other Advocacy groups with similar characteristics as ours, agreed they may or may not be immigration focussed. Thus, examples of such Advocay groups that had to lobby to change laws in their favor , overcoming oppositions will help.
For such advocacy groups , do you have any insights into the following ( Based on your readings or research)?
a) What such group do to increase active participation of their members?
b) How such groups are organized?
c) How the short term and long term goals are developed/identified?
d) How the leadership pieline for such groups is developed?
e) Best practices when interacting with other like minded groups, without undermining their own agenda.
If you would like to discuss on the phone or through e-mail. Thas should be fine with me.
Thanks
Singhsa3
hairstyles CASA Volunteer Background
Macaca
05-13 05:47 PM
Free Ai Weiwei protests are 'condescending'? No, they are about the fear of where China is heading (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100087793/free-ai-weiwei-protests-are-condescending-no-they-are-about-the-fear-of-where-china-is-heading/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph Blog
China is smarting over the negative publicity that has accompanied its arrest of Ai Weiwei. The Deputy Foreign Minister, Mme Fu Ying, who is the former Chinese Ambassador to Britain, said in Hungary yesterday that Europe and America were being �condescending� towards China by their refusal to just shut up about the arrested artist.
Earlier a hurt-sounding foreign ministry spokesman said China was �unhappy� and �baffled� that some countries were trying to treat a �crime suspect as a hero�.
Both of these highly disingenuous remarks are designed to touch a key nationalist button in China in which all criticisms of China are framed as part of a plot by the waning Old Imperial powers to constrain the :Dglorious rise of the new China:D. It is a seductive narrative, but also a fallacious one that needs to be squashed.
In a globalised economy the US and the EU have a �common interest� in China�s peaceful rise, and on the evidence of the last few months (you might say years, going back to the crushing of the pre-Olympic Tibetan crackdowns of 2008) they have legitimate cause to be worried about the direction China is taking.
Ai is merely a lightning rod for that concern.
China is absolutely correct that the US and EU have no �right� to interfere in its judicial affairs, and nor do they seek to. But that doesn�t mean that democratic governments and their citizens don�t have a duty (to themselves, as much as anything else) to speak out about Ai Weiwei, and what his detention might portend.
China talks about Ai being a �crime suspect�, but the fact that hardly anyone outside China (and a fair number inside China) have any confidence in the due process of the Chinese law should in itself give Beijing serious pause for thought.
Popular concerns about Ai are not, as Mme Fu would have it, some silly political point-scoring game. His detention is an expression of naked State power that Europeans and Americans, who lived through totalitarianism not so long ago, find both worrying and revolting.
So when someone asks, as the Chinese do, �what�s it to us?�, the immediate answer should be �absolutely everything�.
China is going to shake the world over the next 50 years � for good or ill � and the shape of the Chinese state is therefore of concern to us all. China can bluster all it likes, it can posture and ignore the criticisms, but modern China does not exist in isolation.
It has emerged as a rising power precisely because it has engaged with the world, signing up to a host of international agreements on trade and politics that imply certain norms of behaviour. The benefits of rejoining the world community can�t come, as Chinese foreign policy mandarins say, with �no strings attached�.
This is why the democratic world feels that Ai�s detention is worth shouting about. It signals a deeply worrying trend in China and while Mme Fu tries to spin these protests as mere �condescension� they are nothing of the kind.
They are about the real fear of where China is heading.
Ai Weiwei and China�s assault on truth (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/12/ai-weiwei-and-chinas-assault-on-truth/) By Phelim Kine | The Washington Times
CHINA'S MEDIA:
A STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE (http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/China-Media-a-Struggle-for-Independence.php)
By James F. Scotton | The Montr�al Review
A founding document for a new China (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-founding-document-for-a-new-china/2011/05/12/AFT5CV1G_story.html) By Michael Gerson | The Washington Post
China is smarting over the negative publicity that has accompanied its arrest of Ai Weiwei. The Deputy Foreign Minister, Mme Fu Ying, who is the former Chinese Ambassador to Britain, said in Hungary yesterday that Europe and America were being �condescending� towards China by their refusal to just shut up about the arrested artist.
Earlier a hurt-sounding foreign ministry spokesman said China was �unhappy� and �baffled� that some countries were trying to treat a �crime suspect as a hero�.
Both of these highly disingenuous remarks are designed to touch a key nationalist button in China in which all criticisms of China are framed as part of a plot by the waning Old Imperial powers to constrain the :Dglorious rise of the new China:D. It is a seductive narrative, but also a fallacious one that needs to be squashed.
In a globalised economy the US and the EU have a �common interest� in China�s peaceful rise, and on the evidence of the last few months (you might say years, going back to the crushing of the pre-Olympic Tibetan crackdowns of 2008) they have legitimate cause to be worried about the direction China is taking.
Ai is merely a lightning rod for that concern.
China is absolutely correct that the US and EU have no �right� to interfere in its judicial affairs, and nor do they seek to. But that doesn�t mean that democratic governments and their citizens don�t have a duty (to themselves, as much as anything else) to speak out about Ai Weiwei, and what his detention might portend.
China talks about Ai being a �crime suspect�, but the fact that hardly anyone outside China (and a fair number inside China) have any confidence in the due process of the Chinese law should in itself give Beijing serious pause for thought.
Popular concerns about Ai are not, as Mme Fu would have it, some silly political point-scoring game. His detention is an expression of naked State power that Europeans and Americans, who lived through totalitarianism not so long ago, find both worrying and revolting.
So when someone asks, as the Chinese do, �what�s it to us?�, the immediate answer should be �absolutely everything�.
China is going to shake the world over the next 50 years � for good or ill � and the shape of the Chinese state is therefore of concern to us all. China can bluster all it likes, it can posture and ignore the criticisms, but modern China does not exist in isolation.
It has emerged as a rising power precisely because it has engaged with the world, signing up to a host of international agreements on trade and politics that imply certain norms of behaviour. The benefits of rejoining the world community can�t come, as Chinese foreign policy mandarins say, with �no strings attached�.
This is why the democratic world feels that Ai�s detention is worth shouting about. It signals a deeply worrying trend in China and while Mme Fu tries to spin these protests as mere �condescension� they are nothing of the kind.
They are about the real fear of where China is heading.
Ai Weiwei and China�s assault on truth (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/12/ai-weiwei-and-chinas-assault-on-truth/) By Phelim Kine | The Washington Times
CHINA'S MEDIA:
A STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE (http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/China-Media-a-Struggle-for-Independence.php)
By James F. Scotton | The Montr�al Review
A founding document for a new China (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-founding-document-for-a-new-china/2011/05/12/AFT5CV1G_story.html) By Michael Gerson | The Washington Post
anadimisra
02-12 03:20 PM
There was another thread calling Indians "Cheap".
"Indian Origin People" is a very broad category of people and only being from the same community does not give you any right to defame the whole community.
IT HAPPENS ONLY in INDIA(N) ORIGIN PEOPLE
"Indian Origin People" is a very broad category of people and only being from the same community does not give you any right to defame the whole community.
IT HAPPENS ONLY in INDIA(N) ORIGIN PEOPLE
delax
07-13 12:56 PM
Split up of 75-25 definitely covers interest of both parties. I don't think an EB2 with PD 2007 will have grudge over an EB3 PD 2002 getting his/her GC before. As a matter of fact, as you said, looking through the eyes of governance, I don't think it is illogical. EB3 has lower preference as compared to EB2 but not zero preference! So, an EB3 2002 getting his GC before EB2 2007 is not insane, again, per my belief. You cannot say 100-0 is justice - come on!
But the same 100-0 logic can be applied between EB1 and Eb2-India. How does EB1 of 2008 get it immediately but EB2-I waits more than 4 years (speaking for myself here) -clearly preference is at play here. if that makes sense then a 100-0 ratio for EB2/EB3 also makes sense
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
But the same 100-0 logic can be applied between EB1 and Eb2-India. How does EB1 of 2008 get it immediately but EB2-I waits more than 4 years (speaking for myself here) -clearly preference is at play here. if that makes sense then a 100-0 ratio for EB2/EB3 also makes sense
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
No comments:
Post a Comment