sorcerer666
04-21 01:53 PM
thanks Michael chertoff
Not baby sitter. I want to take care of my parents.
it is part of our culture, we all live together forever.
well then since its such a problem that they come and go so frequently, have you considered to move back home and go to US every few months to keep the greencard?? Why are you making them travel so frequently so that you can stay with them ??
Not baby sitter. I want to take care of my parents.
it is part of our culture, we all live together forever.
well then since its such a problem that they come and go so frequently, have you considered to move back home and go to US every few months to keep the greencard?? Why are you making them travel so frequently so that you can stay with them ??
wallpaper funny sex quotes. funny sex
NKR
07-04 12:21 PM
I agree, if you are past 180 days since you applied for 485 and if your 140 is approved, it shouldn't matter if your ex employer withdraws 140 now, though I doubt he would.
This is another example of a bad desi employer trying to screw an employee. these stories make me puke. the employer did not have a problem when you found a project, when you negotiated rates and when you worked with the same client for 3 years and now all of a sudden he is holding you accountable. totally unprofessional . sic.
This is another example of a bad desi employer trying to screw an employee. these stories make me puke. the employer did not have a problem when you found a project, when you negotiated rates and when you worked with the same client for 3 years and now all of a sudden he is holding you accountable. totally unprofessional . sic.
kondur_007
04-17 04:39 PM
How can just copy of 140 approval enough. In order to port I think you need job title and description...
He is talking about porting the "Priority Date", for that all you need is I 140 approval notice.
What you are talking about is "AC 21 portability" and changing jobs using that portability: for that you do need details of job title, description etc.
He is talking about porting the "Priority Date", for that all you need is I 140 approval notice.
What you are talking about is "AC 21 portability" and changing jobs using that portability: for that you do need details of job title, description etc.
2011 hot funny sex quotes. funny
wahwah
09-14 04:35 PM
here's my explanation why i think retrogression will get worse -
1) USCIS still has not entered all the july and aug. filers. USCIS will have a good idea by Oct or Nov. how many applications are in the pipeline, how many they can approve and what the PD cut off date needs to be?
2) with the number of applications that were filed this it is obvious that ROW will see retrogression in both EB2 and EB3 categories.
And, would you mind explaining why would ROW get affected? If they were current all along, all the ROW candidates must have already filed, even before july fiasco, right? So, just exactly how do they get affected?
Sorry for the outburst, but I sometimes get tired of people just throwing out speculations :eek: as if they are stating facts. So, back up your statement with logic.
1) USCIS still has not entered all the july and aug. filers. USCIS will have a good idea by Oct or Nov. how many applications are in the pipeline, how many they can approve and what the PD cut off date needs to be?
2) with the number of applications that were filed this it is obvious that ROW will see retrogression in both EB2 and EB3 categories.
And, would you mind explaining why would ROW get affected? If they were current all along, all the ROW candidates must have already filed, even before july fiasco, right? So, just exactly how do they get affected?
Sorry for the outburst, but I sometimes get tired of people just throwing out speculations :eek: as if they are stating facts. So, back up your statement with logic.
more...
Macaca
06-17 10:34 AM
The delay caused by the FBI name check has substantial consequences to applicants and their families, as well as to our country and the economy. Examples of how legitimate applicants suffer include:
Loss of employment and employment opportunities where the position requires green card status or U.S. citizenship;
Possible termination of employment due to the inability to comply with required Form I-9 employment verification procedures where USCIS delays interim EAD issuance;
Difficulties obtaining drivers� licenses;
Inability to qualify for certain federal grants and funds;
Limitations on the ability to purchase property;
Difficulties obtaining credit and student loans; and
Disqualification from in-state tuition.
Loss of employment and employment opportunities where the position requires green card status or U.S. citizenship;
Possible termination of employment due to the inability to comply with required Form I-9 employment verification procedures where USCIS delays interim EAD issuance;
Difficulties obtaining drivers� licenses;
Inability to qualify for certain federal grants and funds;
Limitations on the ability to purchase property;
Difficulties obtaining credit and student loans; and
Disqualification from in-state tuition.
gc28262
02-16 10:34 AM
gc28262,
I don't know how you said this ? But, I call it's a height of ignorance at its best. Dude, wake up to the reality world. You asked how many companies you know ? I bet, It should be more than 90 - 95% of all the companies out there.
Why don't you tell us the total number of consulting companies you know in the first place.
Then tell us how many of those are doing illegal stuff etc ( if you have real information)
Then we will see what percentage of the total companies are bad.
Before arriving at a figure 90%-95%, please provide us the numbers. Be truthful.
I don't know how you said this ? But, I call it's a height of ignorance at its best. Dude, wake up to the reality world. You asked how many companies you know ? I bet, It should be more than 90 - 95% of all the companies out there.
Why don't you tell us the total number of consulting companies you know in the first place.
Then tell us how many of those are doing illegal stuff etc ( if you have real information)
Then we will see what percentage of the total companies are bad.
Before arriving at a figure 90%-95%, please provide us the numbers. Be truthful.
more...
rajeshraipv
05-28 02:18 PM
does anyone know if we have a legal recourse for this? seems like a proper scam perpetrated by bureaucrats too lazy to do their job...
2010 funny sex quotes.
ianlock
06-14 04:39 PM
I opted for the CP option as well. My I-140 was approved in Oct 06 and thats when my attorney received the package for Consular processing from NVC.
Although my PD is not current yet, my lawyer asked me to pay the fees so that they can send the packet back to NVC. I am not sure what to do as my PD is not current yet.
How the hell did you get packet 3 from the NVC before you PD was current.??
I didnt think that was possable?
Although my PD is not current yet, my lawyer asked me to pay the fees so that they can send the packet back to NVC. I am not sure what to do as my PD is not current yet.
How the hell did you get packet 3 from the NVC before you PD was current.??
I didnt think that was possable?
more...
cygent
07-17 07:52 PM
Thanks aadimanav,
I have emailed & faxed Rep. Henry Waxman, CA 30th District
Also 2 legislators here - Senator Sheila Kuehl and Senator Mark Ridley Thomas
Update: Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as well
I will send more tomorrow, and will post here. Come on People. The time is NOW.
I have emailed & faxed Rep. Henry Waxman, CA 30th District
Also 2 legislators here - Senator Sheila Kuehl and Senator Mark Ridley Thomas
Update: Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as well
I will send more tomorrow, and will post here. Come on People. The time is NOW.
hair Sex Quotes: funny sex
delhiguy
07-06 12:33 PM
What if USCIS doesnt return the applications , and releases a press note ,s aying that all applications are being accepted , but they would be processed later (not approving EAD and AP). That would be creating more havoc in our lives.
more...
vbkris77
06-01 07:50 PM
Senate judiciary hearing witness list has a familier name Roy Beck - our friend from right side. I don't think he intends talk about replacing the word spouse with Partner in INA. So something is going on there.. God I wish I know whats that????
hot Pope Benedict XVI quotes,
vulcanfly
07-19 01:42 PM
I have my I140 approved long back but I wanted to make sure that we can get 3 yr extensions if we file 485 extensions.
more...
house funny sexual quotes. funny sex quotes.
munnu77
05-01 09:53 PM
don't we have our own country already?:D
hahaha...good one belmont boy
hahaha...good one belmont boy
tattoo sex and the city quotes on
chanduv23
10-10 03:09 PM
My folks are here visiting... so it will be difficult for me to attend... but i will try
Bring them along :D:D:D:D
Bring them along :D:D:D:D
more...
pictures 2010 funny quotes about sex.
americandesi
08-27 01:41 PM
The reason why most people end up with such situations is that the employers don’t file for H1 extensions on time. Though the law allows filing of H1 extensions upto 6 months before its expiry, most employers file for extensions only at the last moment. It’s advisable to go for premium processing in such cases, so as to get the approvals on time.
dresses Screenshots Funny Quotes:
mbawa2574
07-21 12:32 PM
Are they not supposed to make sure that they have enough senators on their side to pass this bill. Whatever we have won till this point is due to the efforts of core team and people who come to this website using media/campaigns. I have not seen results of any lobbying efforts by this lobbying firm. Am I wrong somewhere ?
more...
makeup Screenshots Sex Quotes:
permfiling
01-15 03:59 PM
I went through the Federal Firearm Law and here is what I found:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person�
(5) who, being an alien�
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas.�
(1) Definitions.� In this subsection�
(A) the term �alien� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(3)); and
(B) the term �nonimmigrant visa� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)).
(2) EXCEPTIONS: Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and(s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that alien is:
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
(B) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(i) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States;or
(ii) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
101(a)(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101(a)(26) The term "nonimmigrant visa" means a visa properly issued to an alien as an eligible nonimmigrant by a competent officer as provided in this Act.
As per my understanding, if you are legally in the US, you can own a small firearm...walk into a store and tell them u need a gun and they will tell u what paper work you need or go to your local police station and ask the requirements. You can find out more details on NRA [national rifle association] website
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person�
(5) who, being an alien�
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas.�
(1) Definitions.� In this subsection�
(A) the term �alien� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(3)); and
(B) the term �nonimmigrant visa� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)).
(2) EXCEPTIONS: Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and(s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that alien is:
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
(B) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(i) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States;or
(ii) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
101(a)(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101(a)(26) The term "nonimmigrant visa" means a visa properly issued to an alien as an eligible nonimmigrant by a competent officer as provided in this Act.
As per my understanding, if you are legally in the US, you can own a small firearm...walk into a store and tell them u need a gun and they will tell u what paper work you need or go to your local police station and ask the requirements. You can find out more details on NRA [national rifle association] website
girlfriend funny sex quotes.
hebron
05-14 09:57 AM
Congrats!
hairstyles Science is a lot like sex.
logiclife
02-01 02:16 PM
Logiclife,
Below is a recent story on travel on AP. I see many posts where folks are asked at POE by CBP offcials if they are still working from the petitioning employer.
Can you advise why CBP officers are even asking to several AP travellers if they are still working for the GC petitioning employer?
My situation: I am not working for the petitioning employer anymore and dont have an attorney as well and so need to get prepared to answer the CBP officails why i am not working for the petitioning employer at POE and you know, CBP officails dont understand AC-21 etc
Please read below.
================================================== =
japs19
Junior Member Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 22
My story...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like sharing mine as mine is the most horrifying.
After scanning my expired H-1 and reviewing my AP, I was sent to "secondary check" where they ask you few questions and verify the authenticity of the documents.
I was asked if I work for the original petitioner? I said no, currently I work for another employer. I showed them my H-1 approval (I-797). The CBP officer was about to stamp my AP and he was told by a "side-kick" that I have to be employed at the same employer otherwise what is the guarantee that I will go and work for that employer. I calmly explained the fact that GC is for future employment and per AC-21 I can change after 180 days. The CBP officer said wait here and then he walked in to some room. He returned after 20 minutes and I was told to go and wait and other officer will take care of the situation. From one officer to another and another to another. I was asked if I am trying to do any fraud. Finally after 5 hours of questioning, I somewhat lost my temper and told them that either send me back to home country or let me go. So after making few phone calls, they concluded that they don't have access to all my records on their system and it is very gray situation so the office in downtown will take care of the situation.
They took my passport, AP, H-1 approval letter and told me to go to downtown office after 30 days and they will decide what to do.
My lawyer was kind enough to accompany me as she was also upset with their act. When I went there, we were rudely asked completely out of place questions which had nothing to do with whose employer I work for or anything and I was told that "I" confused CBP officers by showing AP and H-1 and I should have just shown them AP and everything would have been fine. I am the culprit and I choose to get myself in trouble.....
I said nothing and just saw him stamping my AP and walked out. I don't know what to conclude out of it. But A friend of mine had valid H-1 and AP and they asked "has any one applied for AOS for you?" he said yes. They asked him to show 485 and AP if he had and same story,,,one officer to another and another to another which lasted for 3 hours and finally his H-1 was stamped.
So, again I am not sure what they are trying to get out of this but this is happening at the airport. I am not trying to scare anyone but just be prepared to deal with such situation and keep in mind that you are not doing any fraud and keep the honesty.
This is still not a big deal.
Firstly, the lesson learned from this is, dont show your H1 to the officer at counter if that H1 is expired and you are entering on AP. The officer doesnt care what your history is and how many beautiful H1s you had in past that are now expired. If you are entering into US using advanced parole, then show advanced parole. What is the point of showing an expired H1 stamp?
Secondly, as far as JFK is concerned, that airport seems to have procedure that all AP holders are processed in back office (secondary inspection office) and not processed at the counter. In my case, as soon as the officer saw an AP, (that first thing I showed him even before passport and the I-94 filled out), he said "oh parole ... let me grab that and walk down that room", he put all things (parole, I-94, passport) into a plastic bag and took me to a back office. There, another employee entered AP info in the system, stamped the AP and gave it back to me. It did take about 10-15 minutes for them. But they didnt ask any questions.
So, try to make it simple for employees at POE by showing them the authorization for re-entry - WHICHEVER it is. If you are re-entering on H1, then show them h1 stamp that is valid. Dont show AP. If you are re-entering on AP, then show them AP and TELL THEM you are entering on AP, rather than flashing an expired H1 stamp.
Thirdly, this isnt a nightmare, the guy was processed in downtown office, and took a few extra hours. Big deal. Yes, its a hassle, but one must act professionally rather than throwing tantrums like "let me in or let me go back to my home country". That's NOT how government operates, definately not at that level. There are procedures in place. Emotions and rhetorical outbursts are not going to sway the decision. If you have the right authorization to re-enter, then you will be let back in, there is no other alternative. If you dont, then no amount of rhetoric and outburst is going to save you. The decision is driven by paperwork and not by the impression you create on them. The impression matters when you are getting visa for first time in US consulate. But at POE, its more procedural and there isnt that much discretion and leeway to deport people back.
If you want to throw tantrums and use rhetoric, then there are plenty of places to do that, and I'd suggest you start with your congressman and senator's office. Go there and tell them that let's end the probationaly shackles on skilled immigrants and regularize them in American mainstream OR if they are bad for america, then send them all back. That's where the rhetoric and emotional tantrums might work. They wont work at POE at airports or in USCIS offices.
Calm down people, use AP freely and peacefully and also EAD. AP is not just used by us, it is also used by family and marriage immigration cases. Many people get engaged, come here, then get married and then file for green card based on marriage to citizen. Even they use AP. In fact, they have no other choice except AP for re-entry as they dont have H1 or L1 alternatives.
Below is a recent story on travel on AP. I see many posts where folks are asked at POE by CBP offcials if they are still working from the petitioning employer.
Can you advise why CBP officers are even asking to several AP travellers if they are still working for the GC petitioning employer?
My situation: I am not working for the petitioning employer anymore and dont have an attorney as well and so need to get prepared to answer the CBP officails why i am not working for the petitioning employer at POE and you know, CBP officails dont understand AC-21 etc
Please read below.
================================================== =
japs19
Junior Member Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 22
My story...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like sharing mine as mine is the most horrifying.
After scanning my expired H-1 and reviewing my AP, I was sent to "secondary check" where they ask you few questions and verify the authenticity of the documents.
I was asked if I work for the original petitioner? I said no, currently I work for another employer. I showed them my H-1 approval (I-797). The CBP officer was about to stamp my AP and he was told by a "side-kick" that I have to be employed at the same employer otherwise what is the guarantee that I will go and work for that employer. I calmly explained the fact that GC is for future employment and per AC-21 I can change after 180 days. The CBP officer said wait here and then he walked in to some room. He returned after 20 minutes and I was told to go and wait and other officer will take care of the situation. From one officer to another and another to another. I was asked if I am trying to do any fraud. Finally after 5 hours of questioning, I somewhat lost my temper and told them that either send me back to home country or let me go. So after making few phone calls, they concluded that they don't have access to all my records on their system and it is very gray situation so the office in downtown will take care of the situation.
They took my passport, AP, H-1 approval letter and told me to go to downtown office after 30 days and they will decide what to do.
My lawyer was kind enough to accompany me as she was also upset with their act. When I went there, we were rudely asked completely out of place questions which had nothing to do with whose employer I work for or anything and I was told that "I" confused CBP officers by showing AP and H-1 and I should have just shown them AP and everything would have been fine. I am the culprit and I choose to get myself in trouble.....
I said nothing and just saw him stamping my AP and walked out. I don't know what to conclude out of it. But A friend of mine had valid H-1 and AP and they asked "has any one applied for AOS for you?" he said yes. They asked him to show 485 and AP if he had and same story,,,one officer to another and another to another which lasted for 3 hours and finally his H-1 was stamped.
So, again I am not sure what they are trying to get out of this but this is happening at the airport. I am not trying to scare anyone but just be prepared to deal with such situation and keep in mind that you are not doing any fraud and keep the honesty.
This is still not a big deal.
Firstly, the lesson learned from this is, dont show your H1 to the officer at counter if that H1 is expired and you are entering on AP. The officer doesnt care what your history is and how many beautiful H1s you had in past that are now expired. If you are entering into US using advanced parole, then show advanced parole. What is the point of showing an expired H1 stamp?
Secondly, as far as JFK is concerned, that airport seems to have procedure that all AP holders are processed in back office (secondary inspection office) and not processed at the counter. In my case, as soon as the officer saw an AP, (that first thing I showed him even before passport and the I-94 filled out), he said "oh parole ... let me grab that and walk down that room", he put all things (parole, I-94, passport) into a plastic bag and took me to a back office. There, another employee entered AP info in the system, stamped the AP and gave it back to me. It did take about 10-15 minutes for them. But they didnt ask any questions.
So, try to make it simple for employees at POE by showing them the authorization for re-entry - WHICHEVER it is. If you are re-entering on H1, then show them h1 stamp that is valid. Dont show AP. If you are re-entering on AP, then show them AP and TELL THEM you are entering on AP, rather than flashing an expired H1 stamp.
Thirdly, this isnt a nightmare, the guy was processed in downtown office, and took a few extra hours. Big deal. Yes, its a hassle, but one must act professionally rather than throwing tantrums like "let me in or let me go back to my home country". That's NOT how government operates, definately not at that level. There are procedures in place. Emotions and rhetorical outbursts are not going to sway the decision. If you have the right authorization to re-enter, then you will be let back in, there is no other alternative. If you dont, then no amount of rhetoric and outburst is going to save you. The decision is driven by paperwork and not by the impression you create on them. The impression matters when you are getting visa for first time in US consulate. But at POE, its more procedural and there isnt that much discretion and leeway to deport people back.
If you want to throw tantrums and use rhetoric, then there are plenty of places to do that, and I'd suggest you start with your congressman and senator's office. Go there and tell them that let's end the probationaly shackles on skilled immigrants and regularize them in American mainstream OR if they are bad for america, then send them all back. That's where the rhetoric and emotional tantrums might work. They wont work at POE at airports or in USCIS offices.
Calm down people, use AP freely and peacefully and also EAD. AP is not just used by us, it is also used by family and marriage immigration cases. Many people get engaged, come here, then get married and then file for green card based on marriage to citizen. Even they use AP. In fact, they have no other choice except AP for re-entry as they dont have H1 or L1 alternatives.
sr123
02-07 01:03 PM
I have been through this once. My company(a big one) lawyer said my position does not qualify for EB2. His main concern was salary was not enough. I got promoted to "Senior Software Engineer" and got into the required salary range. My labor and 140 were cleared. So my in my opinion salary range is also significant.
svn
04-07 10:50 AM
this poll is a good idea to understand what most of the members expect from CORE....
....this is a grass-roots organization and any highly skilled legal immigrant should be able to donate $25
Great point praveenuppaluri. But let's face reality for a moment - as several senior members routinely point out, inspite of our organization having several thousand "highly paid" members, the "donor" base is very limited. As Zen says in a truly Zen manner "we are where we are"...and we have to figure out where to go from here. Unquestionably, I am really thankful to our highly dedicated Core team for sacrificing their personal time and making all of the efforts that have led to substantial progress over the last few years for the immigration community. However,, that with a new government in place, we now have a truly unique window of opportunity to make some progress and the question before us is how do we maximize our potential to take advantage of this? The real beauty of my proposal is that we could leverage the enormous dedication of the core team and multiply it several fold, if we could build a strong donor base that provides us the funding required to engage effective lobbyists. Needless to say the more the funding, the stronger can be our lobbying.
but I also understand that most of these lobbying efforts are done in the back ground and its not good idea to share anything in these times. who knows, may be there is an anti-immigrant lurking around (ofcourse paying $$ to become Donor, become senior member whatever) to get inside information.
.....transparancy is good as long as it doesn't hurt the cause.
It is definitely not a good idea to broadcast confidential information on strategies/plans. However, what you are referring to is the merchanics of the process of sharing updates- there are several ways in which we could implement the update process so that information is only shared to a predefined "pool" and that "donors" are first vetted before being brought into the "pool", so to speak. The way IV has currently implemented this process, of course, is through the local chapters. However, their current process is subject to lack of consistency (depending very heavily on the availability of the local chapter coordinators) and more importantly, does not take advantage of the tool that really enables us to all come together i.e. the internet. It is a paradox that an organization founded on the net and is still subjecting itself to the constraints of "physical communication" via the local chapters. I thought they were taking a step in right direction with the creation of the "Donor Forum", however, for some reason, we still seem stuck in the previous mode of operation. We can find a middle ground here that would not compromise confidentiality or our goals - one alternative (certainly not the only one I am sure) is quite simply, email updates compiled by one person (for consistency and uniform direction) that go out a distribution group, where the "donors" on the distribution list, have been vetted by the local chapter coordinators. I know this takes work, but if the Core is looking for a person to pull together a Conference Call to compile this update and send it out, I would be glad to volunteer my services.
Still I've some open issues. If you look at the poll, there isnt a single person who voted NO. We should expect to see a healthy mix of Yes,No and Dont Care. But the way the poll has been put and partly the wording, partly the current IV environment, people are sceptical of putting their real thoughts publicly. This excercise is futile if you have minimal 'NO's --- hope you are getting my point here. The only thing you might end up with is x number of YES and hope to translate the YES into more dollar value for IV and there will be some YES who are already contributing monetarily.
You are correct dilbert_cal - not a single person has explicity voted "No". In reality though, everyone who has viewed this thread (1563 views when I last checked - even if you assume each person has checked this thread at least 10 times, that's about 156 individuals out of whom only about 35 have voted so far!) and not bothered to vote is essentially voting "No"! However, again as you point out, I am not really looking for the "No"s since these people have clearly decided they don't want to part with their money at this stage (not ascribing any reasons or motives here - just stating the facts). Instead, my focus is on coalescing a group around those who voted "Yes" since they, like me, agree that they would contribute more if they received more regular updates of what is going on. Our organization just needs a little more "organization" (pun, intended :p) to make it more effective! Again, just reality but that is also the usual natural evolution of most organizations that start out as pure grassroots organizations.
I really do believe there are substantial number of folks out there who can be engaged more effectively in this process and I invite the Core Leadership team to put more thought in figuring out how to achieve this - I hope you take my suggestion constructively!
Cheers
....this is a grass-roots organization and any highly skilled legal immigrant should be able to donate $25
Great point praveenuppaluri. But let's face reality for a moment - as several senior members routinely point out, inspite of our organization having several thousand "highly paid" members, the "donor" base is very limited. As Zen says in a truly Zen manner "we are where we are"...and we have to figure out where to go from here. Unquestionably, I am really thankful to our highly dedicated Core team for sacrificing their personal time and making all of the efforts that have led to substantial progress over the last few years for the immigration community. However,, that with a new government in place, we now have a truly unique window of opportunity to make some progress and the question before us is how do we maximize our potential to take advantage of this? The real beauty of my proposal is that we could leverage the enormous dedication of the core team and multiply it several fold, if we could build a strong donor base that provides us the funding required to engage effective lobbyists. Needless to say the more the funding, the stronger can be our lobbying.
but I also understand that most of these lobbying efforts are done in the back ground and its not good idea to share anything in these times. who knows, may be there is an anti-immigrant lurking around (ofcourse paying $$ to become Donor, become senior member whatever) to get inside information.
.....transparancy is good as long as it doesn't hurt the cause.
It is definitely not a good idea to broadcast confidential information on strategies/plans. However, what you are referring to is the merchanics of the process of sharing updates- there are several ways in which we could implement the update process so that information is only shared to a predefined "pool" and that "donors" are first vetted before being brought into the "pool", so to speak. The way IV has currently implemented this process, of course, is through the local chapters. However, their current process is subject to lack of consistency (depending very heavily on the availability of the local chapter coordinators) and more importantly, does not take advantage of the tool that really enables us to all come together i.e. the internet. It is a paradox that an organization founded on the net and is still subjecting itself to the constraints of "physical communication" via the local chapters. I thought they were taking a step in right direction with the creation of the "Donor Forum", however, for some reason, we still seem stuck in the previous mode of operation. We can find a middle ground here that would not compromise confidentiality or our goals - one alternative (certainly not the only one I am sure) is quite simply, email updates compiled by one person (for consistency and uniform direction) that go out a distribution group, where the "donors" on the distribution list, have been vetted by the local chapter coordinators. I know this takes work, but if the Core is looking for a person to pull together a Conference Call to compile this update and send it out, I would be glad to volunteer my services.
Still I've some open issues. If you look at the poll, there isnt a single person who voted NO. We should expect to see a healthy mix of Yes,No and Dont Care. But the way the poll has been put and partly the wording, partly the current IV environment, people are sceptical of putting their real thoughts publicly. This excercise is futile if you have minimal 'NO's --- hope you are getting my point here. The only thing you might end up with is x number of YES and hope to translate the YES into more dollar value for IV and there will be some YES who are already contributing monetarily.
You are correct dilbert_cal - not a single person has explicity voted "No". In reality though, everyone who has viewed this thread (1563 views when I last checked - even if you assume each person has checked this thread at least 10 times, that's about 156 individuals out of whom only about 35 have voted so far!) and not bothered to vote is essentially voting "No"! However, again as you point out, I am not really looking for the "No"s since these people have clearly decided they don't want to part with their money at this stage (not ascribing any reasons or motives here - just stating the facts). Instead, my focus is on coalescing a group around those who voted "Yes" since they, like me, agree that they would contribute more if they received more regular updates of what is going on. Our organization just needs a little more "organization" (pun, intended :p) to make it more effective! Again, just reality but that is also the usual natural evolution of most organizations that start out as pure grassroots organizations.
I really do believe there are substantial number of folks out there who can be engaged more effectively in this process and I invite the Core Leadership team to put more thought in figuring out how to achieve this - I hope you take my suggestion constructively!
Cheers
No comments:
Post a Comment