kittu1991
05-01 03:06 PM
When did Srilankan Tamilians become Indian citizens??? also India should make sure that terrorists organisation like LTTE is wiped out from the face of earth weather its in Srilanka, Afganistan or Pakistan... gone are the days when these thugs where called 'freedom fighters' .. they are a terrorist organisation and should be treated in that manner.
Exactly...
Exactly...
wallpaper Rick Ross Responds To Trick
bayarea07
07-27 07:26 PM
If you read carefully that is what vkkrishn said that even after saying 'No' multiple times IBO's
keep bothering you until you are rude/harsh to them.
Is it not law of the land that if you keep bothering a harmless dog even he is going to come bite you and that is what happened with most of the folks here and i do not understand how come any self respecting man can take that rudeness day in and out UNLESS THEY ARE BEING BRAINWASHED TO BELIEVE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE WHO SAYS 'NO' IS A LOOSER.
Nobody harassing anyone. You are doing it to yourself. If you are not interested why would they bother you?
Arrested?? make me laugh...please go ahead.
keep bothering you until you are rude/harsh to them.
Is it not law of the land that if you keep bothering a harmless dog even he is going to come bite you and that is what happened with most of the folks here and i do not understand how come any self respecting man can take that rudeness day in and out UNLESS THEY ARE BEING BRAINWASHED TO BELIEVE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE WHO SAYS 'NO' IS A LOOSER.
Nobody harassing anyone. You are doing it to yourself. If you are not interested why would they bother you?
Arrested?? make me laugh...please go ahead.
johnamit
07-12 04:11 PM
I always has that question what is the real difference, hear people sayinig more taxes less salary and all that but don't know the actual difference yet.
Will appreciate if someone can shed more light or post a link.
Every time I hear "Canadian taxes are so much higher", I respond back with "really ? how much are you paying a month for health insurance?". I suggest a typical breadwinner with spouse + 2 dependents is probably paying $500 / mo + in health insurance premiums. Add that $6K / yr to your US tax bill, then compare it to your Canadian tax bill. ;)
- GS
Will appreciate if someone can shed more light or post a link.
Every time I hear "Canadian taxes are so much higher", I respond back with "really ? how much are you paying a month for health insurance?". I suggest a typical breadwinner with spouse + 2 dependents is probably paying $500 / mo + in health insurance premiums. Add that $6K / yr to your US tax bill, then compare it to your Canadian tax bill. ;)
- GS
2011 Rick Ross Arrested Saturday
aranya
12-14 03:26 PM
Short answer - The (30000-9800) British applicatications have to wait for 2010.
more...
snram4
01-22 05:48 PM
That is always one of the option for me. You do not need to tell that. Similarly everyone has the same choice. If some thing does not work out in USA anyone can find an excellent opportunity in India. Not just, if anyone like to go to India they can go anytime. No need to worry about GC or H1b issues
Then please pack your bags and leave the country in the next flight.
Then please pack your bags and leave the country in the next flight.
ArkBird
04-01 02:56 AM
Here are some of the debacle of Nehru. Some are STILL hunting us and world today.
1. Choosing self over country (see "Sardar" movie for more details. All of congress wanted Sardar Patel as PM but Nehru insisted on him being PM. Can you imagine country today if Sardar Patel would have been the first PM of India?)
2. His promise to hold public referendum in J&K under UN. Why should we invite UN for our internal matter?? Specially when the king of Kashmir has signed union with India himself.
3. 1962 debacle. Though may not be a big deal to some people, it gave unrepairable scare which will hunt us and our army for decades to come.
It is true everyone has made some sacrifices but consider if India were not a free country and if Nehru and others like Mahatma Gandhi didn't dedicate themselves to the cause of nation then would we be better off today? We failed to carry the torch left by them for us.
Has anyone asked them to vote for Nehru dynasty after the blunders? Didnt anyone see it coming? Building society is everyone's responsibility. Not just Nehru or his children's.
This is like saying we wasted one spot in Indian cricket team on Sachin Tendulkar when he scored 0 in some matches or didnt win a match for India.
It is team work and collective responsibility that will make this country prosper. Blaming some person by saying all his fault and we are here because he screwed us is not the right thing to do. It just finds a scapegoat and does not solve the problem. We should learn from the mistakes the country has made and learn from them and move forward.
1. Choosing self over country (see "Sardar" movie for more details. All of congress wanted Sardar Patel as PM but Nehru insisted on him being PM. Can you imagine country today if Sardar Patel would have been the first PM of India?)
2. His promise to hold public referendum in J&K under UN. Why should we invite UN for our internal matter?? Specially when the king of Kashmir has signed union with India himself.
3. 1962 debacle. Though may not be a big deal to some people, it gave unrepairable scare which will hunt us and our army for decades to come.
It is true everyone has made some sacrifices but consider if India were not a free country and if Nehru and others like Mahatma Gandhi didn't dedicate themselves to the cause of nation then would we be better off today? We failed to carry the torch left by them for us.
Has anyone asked them to vote for Nehru dynasty after the blunders? Didnt anyone see it coming? Building society is everyone's responsibility. Not just Nehru or his children's.
This is like saying we wasted one spot in Indian cricket team on Sachin Tendulkar when he scored 0 in some matches or didnt win a match for India.
It is team work and collective responsibility that will make this country prosper. Blaming some person by saying all his fault and we are here because he screwed us is not the right thing to do. It just finds a scapegoat and does not solve the problem. We should learn from the mistakes the country has made and learn from them and move forward.
more...
katrina
02-01 02:34 PM
US news has covered a book by David Heenan -- "Flight Capital" that essentially deals with the fact that high powered immigrants are leaving this country -- for whatever reason -- and how its bad for America. BAD FOR AMERICA. forget about it being bad of GC aspirants. ITS BAD FOR AMERICA. And we have one of america's own high powered former CEO saying that
http://www.flight-capital.com/
This man has no vested interested in talking about this. Obviously he does not need a GC and he is not on H1. He makes our case. How anti-immigration congressional measure are hurting America as a nation as much as it hurts aspiring immigrants.
This is an independent non-partisan source who can be quoted in our cause.
http://www.greatandhra.com/business/greencard_usa.html
and there is another good article with the same topic.
Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal - by Gary Becker, a Nobel Price Winner..alas this administration in immune to such logic
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
http://www.flight-capital.com/
This man has no vested interested in talking about this. Obviously he does not need a GC and he is not on H1. He makes our case. How anti-immigration congressional measure are hurting America as a nation as much as it hurts aspiring immigrants.
This is an independent non-partisan source who can be quoted in our cause.
http://www.greatandhra.com/business/greencard_usa.html
and there is another good article with the same topic.
Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal - by Gary Becker, a Nobel Price Winner..alas this administration in immune to such logic
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
2010 Rick Ross and Gunplay
bestin
01-10 07:11 AM
Dont worry dude.my pd is eb2 Jul07 and my L1 expired in Dec.My company applied for my H1 in sep 09 and it was approved in 3 weeks without RFE. Some of my friends in consulting got RFEs for renewal but was eventually approved atleast until the date of contract.
Hello Gurus,
My priority date is Aug 11 , 2006(EB2) and my 6 year H1B ends Sept 2011. Is there any chance the priority dates will move to Aug 2006 levels in FY2010? Or in FY2011? I am really worried because these days people are getting rejections for H1 renewals. When my time comes for renewal I want to have the EAD as a backup in case H1 renewal gets rejected.
Please let me know your thoughts on movement to Aug 2006 before Sept 2011.
Thanks.
Hello Gurus,
My priority date is Aug 11 , 2006(EB2) and my 6 year H1B ends Sept 2011. Is there any chance the priority dates will move to Aug 2006 levels in FY2010? Or in FY2011? I am really worried because these days people are getting rejections for H1 renewals. When my time comes for renewal I want to have the EAD as a backup in case H1 renewal gets rejected.
Please let me know your thoughts on movement to Aug 2006 before Sept 2011.
Thanks.
more...
zCool
03-26 01:27 AM
If it isn't approved.. then it's gonna be cancelled the moment that rule that's pending that comes out..
It's extremely risky and Feb 04 isn';t that great a PD.. just file new one .. correct way.. and relax.. you will probably get I140 approved earlier that way.. nothing's gonna happen unless laws change and if&when they change.. all PDs will be probably current for 6months to yr..
It's extremely risky and Feb 04 isn';t that great a PD.. just file new one .. correct way.. and relax.. you will probably get I140 approved earlier that way.. nothing's gonna happen unless laws change and if&when they change.. all PDs will be probably current for 6months to yr..
hair rick ross, prison guard,
Saralayar
01-27 12:45 PM
DPuranik,
You have provided a old URL link. Afterwards, the I-140 Premium is extended to all categories including labor substitution cases. Infact, Murthy website also updated that. If you are not sure, do some research on that topic and then post your views.
You have provided a old URL link. Afterwards, the I-140 Premium is extended to all categories including labor substitution cases. Infact, Murthy website also updated that. If you are not sure, do some research on that topic and then post your views.
more...
sanju
04-15 10:00 PM
How about Simon for PM of India. This guy knows everything ahead of time -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk
RxPZh4AnWyk
.
Susan is the best that I have heard till now. Simply awesome!
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk
RxPZh4AnWyk
.
Susan is the best that I have heard till now. Simply awesome!
.
hot girlfriend The Rick Ross
sk2006
03-31 08:54 PM
Sanjay, just ignore them. These are the very same people who are taught from childhood to stab in back. They will not dare to put a post rather they type bad words in comments.
You think you are more patriotic than I?
What makes you think so?
Do you think discussing politics on immigration forum makes you more patriotic? Huh?
BTW, I was not the one to give you bad comments... I just gave you red after reading your responses to my original post.
You think you are more patriotic than I?
What makes you think so?
Do you think discussing politics on immigration forum makes you more patriotic? Huh?
BTW, I was not the one to give you bad comments... I just gave you red after reading your responses to my original post.
more...
house pictures New Music: Rick Ross
aruny5
05-29 12:13 PM
Date of sign up: May 29, 2009
Subscription Name: Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: aruny5)
Subscription Number: S-4EV10617TH7257927
Subscription Name: Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: aruny5)
Subscription Number: S-4EV10617TH7257927
tattoo Make sure to cop on the 28th.
Pineapple
12-14 02:16 PM
I agree with alterego.
There is another compelling argument against taking the lawsuit way, even if assuming there is a case to be made, and we have plenty of money. (The first is unclear, the second is a firm no, but let us assume anyway for the sake or argument)
One of the reasons why Roe v Wade, 34 years on, is still a controversial decision today is the fact that the US is probably unique in the world in the sense that a constitutionality argument was used to decide public policy.
In Europe, as in other parts of the world, abortion was considered as a health issue, and handled via legislation and health care guidelines.
But because it was a constitutionality issue in US, and enforced from the bench, a significant portion of the populace felt left out of the decision making process, which stimulated a simmering opposition and entrenched the main actors of the "culture wars", which persist to this day.
There is significant debate even among liberals whether Roe V Wade has helped or harmed the liberal cause, and if knowing what we know, there could have been another approach to achieve the same end.
In a nutshell, approaching the courts is a double edged sword. There may be some strategic gains in the short term, but the long term impact is unclear and unpredictable. A legislative approach might be slower and incremental, but it is less risky.
Think of lobbying as polite negotiation.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
This is exactly correct. It is not the question of right or wrong here. That is what gets folks so upset on this thread, they feel since their viewpoint s right then.......... Most neutral observers like mbartosik can see this as unjust and there may be many in the US as well, however certainly not the majority. However, there are many ways in which this could backfire. One example is the recently seen debate over illegal immigration and the turn in public sentiment. Truth be told, if someone did something wrong 12 yrs ago(crossed the fence), now is married to a US citizen and has 3 US children, what do you do with them? What about the 3yr old who was brought to the USA by their parents and knows no other system? Perhaps a few years ago joe public would have given them a pass, no more, the debate has become so nasty that positions have been hardened to the point that reason does not prevail. Another reason has something to do with the perceived sense of entitlement Americans sensed in the illegal immigrant community(of course fanned by Lou Dobbs and his ilk). These are complex issues and generally you will get a lot further appealing to someones sense of fairness than explaining how you are entitled to something and will take it from them if it is not given to you.
There is another compelling argument against taking the lawsuit way, even if assuming there is a case to be made, and we have plenty of money. (The first is unclear, the second is a firm no, but let us assume anyway for the sake or argument)
One of the reasons why Roe v Wade, 34 years on, is still a controversial decision today is the fact that the US is probably unique in the world in the sense that a constitutionality argument was used to decide public policy.
In Europe, as in other parts of the world, abortion was considered as a health issue, and handled via legislation and health care guidelines.
But because it was a constitutionality issue in US, and enforced from the bench, a significant portion of the populace felt left out of the decision making process, which stimulated a simmering opposition and entrenched the main actors of the "culture wars", which persist to this day.
There is significant debate even among liberals whether Roe V Wade has helped or harmed the liberal cause, and if knowing what we know, there could have been another approach to achieve the same end.
In a nutshell, approaching the courts is a double edged sword. There may be some strategic gains in the short term, but the long term impact is unclear and unpredictable. A legislative approach might be slower and incremental, but it is less risky.
Think of lobbying as polite negotiation.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
This is exactly correct. It is not the question of right or wrong here. That is what gets folks so upset on this thread, they feel since their viewpoint s right then.......... Most neutral observers like mbartosik can see this as unjust and there may be many in the US as well, however certainly not the majority. However, there are many ways in which this could backfire. One example is the recently seen debate over illegal immigration and the turn in public sentiment. Truth be told, if someone did something wrong 12 yrs ago(crossed the fence), now is married to a US citizen and has 3 US children, what do you do with them? What about the 3yr old who was brought to the USA by their parents and knows no other system? Perhaps a few years ago joe public would have given them a pass, no more, the debate has become so nasty that positions have been hardened to the point that reason does not prevail. Another reason has something to do with the perceived sense of entitlement Americans sensed in the illegal immigrant community(of course fanned by Lou Dobbs and his ilk). These are complex issues and generally you will get a lot further appealing to someones sense of fairness than explaining how you are entitled to something and will take it from them if it is not given to you.
more...
pictures Hip-hop#39;s top cop wasn#39;t
vdlrao
09-24 03:18 PM
Do you think EB-2 India will cross 2005 by Sept. 2010? Thanks.
EB-I will be in mid or late 2006 by Sep 2009.
EB-I will be in mid or late 2006 by Sep 2009.
dresses Rick Ross – Valley Of Death
Rohan99
07-27 03:29 PM
Kishmunn .... you take the bull by the horns.
So now you say Amway gives you 1099-INT ? Didn't you earlier say they give a 1099-MISC ?
BTW, Amway cannot issue you a 1099-INT -- that is for bank interest. Look who do not know things (and still try to open mouth ) :rolleyes:
Bottomline -- you are NOT allowed to do ANY type of business on H1. If you think I am wrong , just share your name and address and I will be happy to send the info to CIS.
Your mouthfull of garbage does not change the law
So now you say Amway gives you 1099-INT ? Didn't you earlier say they give a 1099-MISC ?
BTW, Amway cannot issue you a 1099-INT -- that is for bank interest. Look who do not know things (and still try to open mouth ) :rolleyes:
Bottomline -- you are NOT allowed to do ANY type of business on H1. If you think I am wrong , just share your name and address and I will be happy to send the info to CIS.
Your mouthfull of garbage does not change the law
more...
makeup heavy weight Rick Ross.
vdlrao
07-29 12:15 AM
However, these students are not completely exempted from the H1B quota for each year. Whatever, if PERM filing in year 2008 has witnessed 46% drop since 2007 ... it tells us a lot.
I presume the decrease in labour filing in 2008 might be a possibility due to the offshore Indian companies which shifting to H1B sponsorship instead of L1 sponsorship. Because most of the L1s being rejected with these companies recently. So they switching to H1 sponsorship. And obviously they normally dont sponsor GC. So this is just my thinking on why the labor filings decreased in 2008 compared to 2007.
http://www.myvisajobs.com/reports/Sponsor/Top500_h1b_visa_sponsor_2005.pdf
I presume the decrease in labour filing in 2008 might be a possibility due to the offshore Indian companies which shifting to H1B sponsorship instead of L1 sponsorship. Because most of the L1s being rejected with these companies recently. So they switching to H1 sponsorship. And obviously they normally dont sponsor GC. So this is just my thinking on why the labor filings decreased in 2008 compared to 2007.
http://www.myvisajobs.com/reports/Sponsor/Top500_h1b_visa_sponsor_2005.pdf
girlfriend rick ross album,
smuggymba
07-27 08:04 AM
When did talking to strangers a crime. If you dont like you can always say no :-) . If you are as ambitious as us come join us and make millions by 40. Otherwise live your fixed income lives .
I wont be offended as I am not with Amway/Quixtar I am just posting on behalf of them for fun :-)
we dont need to work after 40 we will move to Florida with all the money we make , stop stalking people , stop working just enjoy everyday on the beach and big mansion bought from the savings from the regular job and live off of free $xxxx/month earnings we make out of Amway/Quixtar . Where as you guys will be slogging in 40's and 50's
Both statements can't be true at the same time..u said u will retire with $xxx and then u say u r not associated. This con stuff is what Quixtar is known for. Lie to people and con them into joining by luring them.........this is a synonym for ponzi scheme.
I wont be offended as I am not with Amway/Quixtar I am just posting on behalf of them for fun :-)
we dont need to work after 40 we will move to Florida with all the money we make , stop stalking people , stop working just enjoy everyday on the beach and big mansion bought from the savings from the regular job and live off of free $xxxx/month earnings we make out of Amway/Quixtar . Where as you guys will be slogging in 40's and 50's
Both statements can't be true at the same time..u said u will retire with $xxx and then u say u r not associated. This con stuff is what Quixtar is known for. Lie to people and con them into joining by luring them.........this is a synonym for ponzi scheme.
hairstyles Rick Ross amp; Pusha T)
dealsnet
09-03 11:37 PM
We cannot judge when some one who is no more. No court will punish any one after death. If he is bad, he will face the final JUDGEMENT with every one.
dealsnet,
You picking on CHANDUV23 is unwarranted. You lack debating skills. Do you have a argument to make against "unprecedented political killings, govt and personal land grabbing, corruption, and opportunistic politics of YSR" ?
dealsnet,
You picking on CHANDUV23 is unwarranted. You lack debating skills. Do you have a argument to make against "unprecedented political killings, govt and personal land grabbing, corruption, and opportunistic politics of YSR" ?
newuser
09-23 09:15 PM
E-mailed everyone on the list. Only one bounced ID.
JazzByTheBay
12-13 09:09 PM
Probably the best argument I've read all day, and your take on it makes a lot more sense - great for a sanity check! :)
cheers!
jazz
As you use the phrase Check Mate....
Chess is all about thinking strategically several moves ahead.
Given the current political climate on immigration I think that we will be in a check mate position (on the loosing end) if we pursue that road.
The anti's would be all over us as soon as we filed in federal district court probably even before a hearing, and definitely after a hearing. If we lost in lower courts the Supreme Court would probably refuse to hear the appeal, in the mean time we'd have just stirred up the anti's hornets nest against us, just as much if not worse than against the illegals.
Asking Congress to make small changes in the existing laws annoys the anti's. Telling them or forcing them to wholesale rewrite their laws would make us public enemy #1. We would be lucky to have more than a handful of law makers willing to stand up for us. It would kill off all lobbying ability.
Think of lobbying as polite negotiation.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
I would rather negotiate than fight, I would rather lobby than court challenge.
So yes, check mate, if we follow this route.
Alternatively, a British phase: Royally screwed!
cheers!
jazz
As you use the phrase Check Mate....
Chess is all about thinking strategically several moves ahead.
Given the current political climate on immigration I think that we will be in a check mate position (on the loosing end) if we pursue that road.
The anti's would be all over us as soon as we filed in federal district court probably even before a hearing, and definitely after a hearing. If we lost in lower courts the Supreme Court would probably refuse to hear the appeal, in the mean time we'd have just stirred up the anti's hornets nest against us, just as much if not worse than against the illegals.
Asking Congress to make small changes in the existing laws annoys the anti's. Telling them or forcing them to wholesale rewrite their laws would make us public enemy #1. We would be lucky to have more than a handful of law makers willing to stand up for us. It would kill off all lobbying ability.
Think of lobbying as polite negotiation.
Think of Supreme court case as picking a fist fight, in which we are badly out numbered.
Once you have started a fist fight it is much harder to negotiate, especially from a loosing position.
I would rather negotiate than fight, I would rather lobby than court challenge.
So yes, check mate, if we follow this route.
Alternatively, a British phase: Royally screwed!
No comments:
Post a Comment