xyzgc
02-12 10:31 PM
its all forgotten now, just wait for a bright tomorrow.:D
wallpaper Jordan Jansen Wallpaper
unitednations
08-14 09:12 PM
Sorry to post in this thread, but I was wondering if United Nations would be kind enough to answer two questions for me (well, actually one is from my colleague). They are kind of generic so it might help other people too, I hope. I posted this on other threads but I havent gotten any responses for the longest time, so Im posting here. Very sorry to those who are following this thread for the original topic.
1) From my colleague: As per his family customs, his mothers FIRST name was also changed after marriage. Before marriage she was Vimla Patil, and now she is Anasuya Deshpande. She uses her married first name and last name on her passport, childrens birth certificate, etc. Only her school leaving has her maiden first name, maiden last name.
He was wondering how to put this info on his I-485/G-325a form. They ask for Mothers Maiden name in one column, and then first name in the next. If he puts down Patil and then Anasuya - it wont be correct as such a person doesnt exist. What is the best way to represent her name. (remember, the birth cert that he will be submitting for himself will have her name as Anasuya Deshpande)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
2) My question (and this has been asked before, but no one has a rock solid answer). My husband's labor has been approved, approved I-140, his priority date is Oct 2006. I received a labor sub (please dont scream at me.. I dint have anything to do with the matching... it just came my way:o) , but pending I-140, my priority date (if I-140 is approved) will be Feb 2005.
I wanted to know if we should only choose one of these two applications to proceed further or file two I-485 applications- One with me as primary and him as beneficiary, and the other with him as primary. There are these rare postings where people have said that USCIS can reject both applications/ drop both or deny one initially itself, or ask you to choose one upfront. No one has talked about successful multiple filings, so we dont have unbiased statistics in this space. What is your thought on this issue? Which way would you recommend we proceed? Frankly, I am nervous about my application until the I-140 clears, (and my I-140 was only applied in July 2007) ... yet my husbands pd is almost 20 months after mine. Please enlighten.
Thanks!
FYI, both of us have been in the U.S since 2000, but for various strokes of timely bad luck we couldnt file until Dec 2006, So I hope there arent too many hard feelings from people who have also waited as long as we have. I know the feeling.
Where they ask for her name; then on a separate piece of paper she should explain the different names. Isn't much of a problem.
Surprisingly; people in the situation where both spouses have 140's pending/approved have opted to file four 485's. My experience is that just about everyone has chosen this option.
Only risk is that somehow when you file multiple 485 filings; uscis opens up two different alien numbers for you. Once they figure it out then they have to consolidate your files which may take some additional time. However; this is very rare that this happens because there is enough detail that a person puts on the g-325a that uscis systems would be able to detect that a person has multiple filings and they won't create a second alien number (file).
Biggest advantage:
One of the spouses 140 gets denied/revoked and can't use portability.
One of the spouses gets stuck in name check and other spouse can't get approved until primary gets cleared through name check.
Divorce/separation is an issue (surprisingly this comes up quite often where in some dispute one of the spouses wants to cancel others greencard....happens more often then people think).
One of the spouses actually pass away (i know of a situation such as this and the other spouse left the country).
Other then it costing some more money; I don't see much of a risk.
1) From my colleague: As per his family customs, his mothers FIRST name was also changed after marriage. Before marriage she was Vimla Patil, and now she is Anasuya Deshpande. She uses her married first name and last name on her passport, childrens birth certificate, etc. Only her school leaving has her maiden first name, maiden last name.
He was wondering how to put this info on his I-485/G-325a form. They ask for Mothers Maiden name in one column, and then first name in the next. If he puts down Patil and then Anasuya - it wont be correct as such a person doesnt exist. What is the best way to represent her name. (remember, the birth cert that he will be submitting for himself will have her name as Anasuya Deshpande)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
2) My question (and this has been asked before, but no one has a rock solid answer). My husband's labor has been approved, approved I-140, his priority date is Oct 2006. I received a labor sub (please dont scream at me.. I dint have anything to do with the matching... it just came my way:o) , but pending I-140, my priority date (if I-140 is approved) will be Feb 2005.
I wanted to know if we should only choose one of these two applications to proceed further or file two I-485 applications- One with me as primary and him as beneficiary, and the other with him as primary. There are these rare postings where people have said that USCIS can reject both applications/ drop both or deny one initially itself, or ask you to choose one upfront. No one has talked about successful multiple filings, so we dont have unbiased statistics in this space. What is your thought on this issue? Which way would you recommend we proceed? Frankly, I am nervous about my application until the I-140 clears, (and my I-140 was only applied in July 2007) ... yet my husbands pd is almost 20 months after mine. Please enlighten.
Thanks!
FYI, both of us have been in the U.S since 2000, but for various strokes of timely bad luck we couldnt file until Dec 2006, So I hope there arent too many hard feelings from people who have also waited as long as we have. I know the feeling.
Where they ask for her name; then on a separate piece of paper she should explain the different names. Isn't much of a problem.
Surprisingly; people in the situation where both spouses have 140's pending/approved have opted to file four 485's. My experience is that just about everyone has chosen this option.
Only risk is that somehow when you file multiple 485 filings; uscis opens up two different alien numbers for you. Once they figure it out then they have to consolidate your files which may take some additional time. However; this is very rare that this happens because there is enough detail that a person puts on the g-325a that uscis systems would be able to detect that a person has multiple filings and they won't create a second alien number (file).
Biggest advantage:
One of the spouses 140 gets denied/revoked and can't use portability.
One of the spouses gets stuck in name check and other spouse can't get approved until primary gets cleared through name check.
Divorce/separation is an issue (surprisingly this comes up quite often where in some dispute one of the spouses wants to cancel others greencard....happens more often then people think).
One of the spouses actually pass away (i know of a situation such as this and the other spouse left the country).
Other then it costing some more money; I don't see much of a risk.
GCnightmare
08-02 02:55 PM
Thanks for the quick reply. I never overstayed my I-94 either before leaving US or re-entering US. But just a thought... Do you mean if somebody covered by 245(i) and never left US after filing the labor before April 2001, still be eligible to adjust status?
Thanks
Thanks
2011 Jordan. 119 downloads
number30
03-26 06:14 PM
Per my understanding, it absolutely is. An LCA amendment has to be filed each time there is a location change outside of commutable distance from the original location for which the H-1B was filed.
That what our attorney's office said. One guy moved from Houston TX to Austin TX . Earlier we use to get LCA and keep it in file. when we asked the attorney last year he told us do H1 amendment. In doing this amendments filing etc company is losing the business. Now they are planning come out of H1 Business totally
That what our attorney's office said. One guy moved from Houston TX to Austin TX . Earlier we use to get LCA and keep it in file. when we asked the attorney last year he told us do H1 amendment. In doing this amendments filing etc company is losing the business. Now they are planning come out of H1 Business totally
more...
unitednations
08-02 11:55 AM
I read this thread ONLY to not to miss any single word from US, no wonder.. his advises are indirectly helping many others like me in getting more understanding about what we are doing..
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
very good information. I just hope it isn't too late for people to put in the correct information into the forms.
I remember in my previous day job whenever there was a gray area that we were trying to exploit (could be Securities and Exchange Rules, IRS rules, etc.), all we had to do was convince ourselves and ourselves had the vested interest in getting a certain outcome. However; we always had to be ready for the next level if the regulatory bodies came asking that we had a reasonable basis for our conclusions.
Difference in most things is that the SEC and IRS do not "approve" your tax returns or financial statements. They may come and ask. However; immigration law; the onus on us is to prove that we are eligible for the benefit and have to prove it with every application. Everyone should be ready for the next level of scrutiny.
I had worked on a case where USCIS was trying to add up 20 i-140's for ability to pay and telling the company that they don't have the numbers for all those people. While we were working on this; we had to get ready for the possible outcome (ie., uscis going after the approved i-140's (44 of them) and the h-1b's. We responded to the 20 rfe's but had set it up that if uscis came asking about the others that the information we were showing in these responses would not contradict and would be sufficient if they came after the approved ones.
Well; after the rfe response; uscis did come after the approved cases and sent in the notice of intent to revoke the 44 approved cases (some were approved almost three years before). They all got re-approved but you have to be ready with all the evidence.
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
very good information. I just hope it isn't too late for people to put in the correct information into the forms.
I remember in my previous day job whenever there was a gray area that we were trying to exploit (could be Securities and Exchange Rules, IRS rules, etc.), all we had to do was convince ourselves and ourselves had the vested interest in getting a certain outcome. However; we always had to be ready for the next level if the regulatory bodies came asking that we had a reasonable basis for our conclusions.
Difference in most things is that the SEC and IRS do not "approve" your tax returns or financial statements. They may come and ask. However; immigration law; the onus on us is to prove that we are eligible for the benefit and have to prove it with every application. Everyone should be ready for the next level of scrutiny.
I had worked on a case where USCIS was trying to add up 20 i-140's for ability to pay and telling the company that they don't have the numbers for all those people. While we were working on this; we had to get ready for the possible outcome (ie., uscis going after the approved i-140's (44 of them) and the h-1b's. We responded to the 20 rfe's but had set it up that if uscis came asking about the others that the information we were showing in these responses would not contradict and would be sufficient if they came after the approved ones.
Well; after the rfe response; uscis did come after the approved cases and sent in the notice of intent to revoke the 44 approved cases (some were approved almost three years before). They all got re-approved but you have to be ready with all the evidence.
Macaca
03-06 09:04 PM
The Top 200 H-1B Employers Of 2006 (http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/15273) By Brad Reese | Network World, 05/17/2007
Page 12 & 31 of Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
Top 19 Employers of New H-1Bs Petitions Approved in FY 2006
WIPRO LTD. 3,143
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3,125
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 2,754
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. 1,753
MICROSOFT CORP. 1,297
PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. 969
COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS U.S. 863
I-FLEX SOLUTIONS INC. 695
HCL AMERICA INC. 652
LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. 624
TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC. 614
INTEL CORP. 613
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 545
ACCENTURE LLP 519
POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB INDIA LTD. 497
MPHASIS CORP. 445
SYNTEL CONSULTING INC. 415
ERNST & YOUNG LLP 396
LANCESOFT INC. 394
Other 88,070 (80.3 percent)
TOTAL 109,614 (0.07 % of U.S. labor force)
Source: USCIS
Explanatory note from USCIS: Employers were identified and counted on the basis of tax ID.
The number of approved petitions for new workers is not identical with the number of workers on the job because
workers are occasionally sponsored by more than one employer,
the job offer may subsequently be withdrawn,
the job offer may be declined, or
the worker if residing outside the country, may be denied a visa.
The total of 109,614 exceeds 65,000 regular plus 20,000 masters caps because it includes petitions for new workers exempted from the caps.
Fiscal year of petition approval often is earlier than fiscal year of worker start date. For example, about 50,000 H-1B petitions were approved in FY 2006 for a start date in FY 2007. The reason is that many petitions were filed in April beginning of cap season) and May by sponsors for workers beginning their employment in October---two different fiscal years.
The same phenomenon occurred this year, offsetting last year's effect to an unknown extent, but rendering straight comparisons between petition approvals and employment starts in a fiscal year subject to error and misinterpretation.
The CIA Fact Book estimates the size of the U.S. labor force in 2006 at 151.4 million.
The list in the table is for individuals who were hired on an approved H-1B petition for “initial employment” in 2006. Petitions approved for “continuing employment” would include both H-1B renewals by that same employer and individuals who had been working on H-1B status for another employer.
Pages 11-12
Critics charge that “most” H-1B visas are used by companies that engage in “outsourcing.” The 10 companies cited in these reports are Infosys Technologies, Wipro Technologies, Cognizant Technology Solutions, Patni Computer Systems, Mphasis, HCL America, Deloitte & Touche, Tata Consultancy Services, Accenture and Satyam Computer Services.
WIPRO LTD. 3,143
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3,125
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 2,754
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. 1,753
PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. 969
COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS U.S. 863
HCL AMERICA INC. 652
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 545
ACCENTURE LLP 519
MPHASIS CORP. 445
Total 14,768
The 10 companies cited most by critics used less than 14 percent of new H-1B petitions approved in 2006 for initial employment (new hires who were not in H-1B status for a prior employer), according to USCIS.
The new H-1B professionals hired in 2006 by these global companies totaled fewer than 15,000, representing less than 4 percent of the approximately 440,000 people employed by these 10 companies worldwide.
It would be difficult to claim such a small number and proportion of employees are leading to the loss of a large number of American jobs, particularly within the context of a U.S. economy producing employment for over 145 million people. In fact, it is not clear it is leading to the loss of any American jobs.
The vast majority of H-1B visas go to U.S. high tech companies, financial institutions and U.S. universities.
Senators Grassley and Durbin wrote a letter to the companies on this list with headquarters in India.
Crackdown on Indian Outsourcing Firms (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2007/db20070515_218119.htm?chan=search) Two senators are probing how Indian outsourcing firms use U.S. work visas, with an eye on new restrictions by Peter Elstrom | Business Week, May 15, 2007
Lawmakers ask foreign firms for work visa data (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63251&postcount=896) By Donna Smith, Reuters, Monday, May 14, 2007
Senators questioning tech company use of H1-B visa program (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63122&postcount=892) By Suzanne Gamboa | Associated Press, 05/14/2007
Page 12 & 31 of Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
Top 19 Employers of New H-1Bs Petitions Approved in FY 2006
WIPRO LTD. 3,143
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3,125
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 2,754
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. 1,753
MICROSOFT CORP. 1,297
PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. 969
COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS U.S. 863
I-FLEX SOLUTIONS INC. 695
HCL AMERICA INC. 652
LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. 624
TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC. 614
INTEL CORP. 613
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 545
ACCENTURE LLP 519
POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB INDIA LTD. 497
MPHASIS CORP. 445
SYNTEL CONSULTING INC. 415
ERNST & YOUNG LLP 396
LANCESOFT INC. 394
Other 88,070 (80.3 percent)
TOTAL 109,614 (0.07 % of U.S. labor force)
Source: USCIS
Explanatory note from USCIS: Employers were identified and counted on the basis of tax ID.
The number of approved petitions for new workers is not identical with the number of workers on the job because
workers are occasionally sponsored by more than one employer,
the job offer may subsequently be withdrawn,
the job offer may be declined, or
the worker if residing outside the country, may be denied a visa.
The total of 109,614 exceeds 65,000 regular plus 20,000 masters caps because it includes petitions for new workers exempted from the caps.
Fiscal year of petition approval often is earlier than fiscal year of worker start date. For example, about 50,000 H-1B petitions were approved in FY 2006 for a start date in FY 2007. The reason is that many petitions were filed in April beginning of cap season) and May by sponsors for workers beginning their employment in October---two different fiscal years.
The same phenomenon occurred this year, offsetting last year's effect to an unknown extent, but rendering straight comparisons between petition approvals and employment starts in a fiscal year subject to error and misinterpretation.
The CIA Fact Book estimates the size of the U.S. labor force in 2006 at 151.4 million.
The list in the table is for individuals who were hired on an approved H-1B petition for “initial employment” in 2006. Petitions approved for “continuing employment” would include both H-1B renewals by that same employer and individuals who had been working on H-1B status for another employer.
Pages 11-12
Critics charge that “most” H-1B visas are used by companies that engage in “outsourcing.” The 10 companies cited in these reports are Infosys Technologies, Wipro Technologies, Cognizant Technology Solutions, Patni Computer Systems, Mphasis, HCL America, Deloitte & Touche, Tata Consultancy Services, Accenture and Satyam Computer Services.
WIPRO LTD. 3,143
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3,125
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 2,754
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. 1,753
PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. 969
COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS U.S. 863
HCL AMERICA INC. 652
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 545
ACCENTURE LLP 519
MPHASIS CORP. 445
Total 14,768
The 10 companies cited most by critics used less than 14 percent of new H-1B petitions approved in 2006 for initial employment (new hires who were not in H-1B status for a prior employer), according to USCIS.
The new H-1B professionals hired in 2006 by these global companies totaled fewer than 15,000, representing less than 4 percent of the approximately 440,000 people employed by these 10 companies worldwide.
It would be difficult to claim such a small number and proportion of employees are leading to the loss of a large number of American jobs, particularly within the context of a U.S. economy producing employment for over 145 million people. In fact, it is not clear it is leading to the loss of any American jobs.
The vast majority of H-1B visas go to U.S. high tech companies, financial institutions and U.S. universities.
Senators Grassley and Durbin wrote a letter to the companies on this list with headquarters in India.
Crackdown on Indian Outsourcing Firms (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2007/db20070515_218119.htm?chan=search) Two senators are probing how Indian outsourcing firms use U.S. work visas, with an eye on new restrictions by Peter Elstrom | Business Week, May 15, 2007
Lawmakers ask foreign firms for work visa data (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63251&postcount=896) By Donna Smith, Reuters, Monday, May 14, 2007
Senators questioning tech company use of H1-B visa program (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63122&postcount=892) By Suzanne Gamboa | Associated Press, 05/14/2007
more...
Tito_ortiz
01-03 03:06 PM
Listen to this, The US attacked Iraq and that accomplished exactly what the terrorists want. Terrorists want to see chaos and disruption. I believe the US is losing the war on terror and the results from the failed Iraq invasion can get worse, since that may have generated one dozen Jihad style attackers to be unveiled in 5-20 years from now.
India should not attack Pak and spend tons of money like the US did. Instead, invest all that money in secret services and let them penetrate the enemy line. Let the secret service perform a detailed investigation of sources, then apply snipers or other ways to take perpetrators down.
The last thing we need now with this dreadful economy is another war. Palestinians are already starting the whole fire again. We do not need one more war.
India should not attack Pak and spend tons of money like the US did. Instead, invest all that money in secret services and let them penetrate the enemy line. Let the secret service perform a detailed investigation of sources, then apply snipers or other ways to take perpetrators down.
The last thing we need now with this dreadful economy is another war. Palestinians are already starting the whole fire again. We do not need one more war.
2010 Download this wallpaper and
Macaca
05-01 06:05 PM
A New Immigration Consensus
A bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors have joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703387904576279293334248326.html)
By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG | Wall Street Journal
Last month, President Obama convened a diverse group of business executives, mayors, law enforcement leaders, ministers and advocates at the White House to discuss a problem that threatens America's economic future�our broken immigration system.
We've tried before to fix it. President George W. Bush made comprehensive immigration reform a major legislative priority during his second term. Congressional leaders from both parties, including Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain, worked tirelessly to pass legislation. But the bill could not garner the required votes. Nor could a much narrower bill, the Dream Act, which would have granted legal status to the children of immigrants who enroll in college or the military.
These defeats have led to a conventional wisdom in Washington that bipartisan immigration reform is impossible. But a new consensus on immigration reform has emerged in the business community that could break the logjam and provide a much-needed jolt to our economy. The idea is simple: Reform the way we attract and keep talented and hard-working people from abroad to better promote economic growth.
In the global economy, the countries that attract the world's best, brightest and hardest-working will grow and succeed. Those that refuse them entry will not. America has long understood this. We would not have become a global superpower without opening our doors to immigrants�and we cannot long remain one without continuing that practice. Smart, self-motivated immigrants spur the innovations and create the jobs our economy needs to thrive. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, 25% of high-tech startups in the U.S. had at least one immigrant as a key founder. Those companies alone have created 450,000 jobs�with the vast majority of them going to Americans.
Our global competitors understand how crucial immigrants are to economic growth. They roll out the red carpet for entrepreneurs; we have no entrepreneur visa. They heavily recruit our advanced-degree students; we educate them and send them home. They woo the engineers, scientists and other skilled professionals who invent new products, launch product lines, and develop the technology of tomorrow; we erect arbitrary, senseless and bureaucratic barriers to recruitment. And we do all this even as our unemployment rate hovers around 9%.
Although each party claims to have the solution to our country's economic woes, neither has embraced a job-creation strategy based on immigration reform, which would not add a penny to the national debt. To spur them into action, a bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors has joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. In nine months the Partnership for a New American Economy has grown to more than 200 members, including companies that together employ more than 3.5 million people.
We believe in the need to secure our borders, make it possible to hold businesses accountable for verifying the status of workers, address the reality that 11 million people are here illegally and cannot be deported en masse�and increase lawful opportunities for those who want to come to this country and contribute to our prosperity. Nevertheless, our nation cannot afford to wait for Washington to get its act together and pass comprehensive immigration reform. There is too much at stake. Our economy demands that we take immediate action on the most urgent�and politically attainable�reform: making it easier for job creators to come and stay here.
Creating a visa for entrepreneurs who already have funding to start their businesses will lead directly and immediately to American jobs. Visa reforms to improve temporary and permanent pathways for companies to fill the current shortages of engineers, scientists and other specialists�whose annual visa caps are often exhausted within days of becoming available�will spur growth at existing U.S. companies.
Providing visas to the brightest foreign graduates of our universities will allow our economy to reap the rewards of their work. At the same time, allowing immigrants who succeed in college, or serve in our military, the chance to pursue a career and build their lives here legally will strengthen the long-term health of the American economy.
Finally, developing a reliable way for employers to hire guest workers�who grow the nation's food, support our $1.3 trillion tourism industry, and fill seasonal gaps across industries�will help support U.S. businesses and create additional, better-paying American jobs.
Those who focus on where the parties differ on immigration, rather than where they both agree, have paralyzed the debate in Washington for far too long. Despite this deadlock, there is an opportunity for both parties to seize upon the economics of immigration reform and focus on what all Americans agree we need: more jobs. Leaders of both parties talk about creating jobs, but they are ignoring the voices of business leaders who can actually create them�if only Congress would give them the tools.
Mr. Bloomberg, an independent, is mayor of New York City
In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio shrugs off a rough April (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arpaio-trouble-20110501,0,3084923.story) By Nicholas Riccardi | Los Angeles Times
Obama renews call for immigration action in Miami speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-renews-call-for-immigration-action-in-miami-speech/2011/04/29/AFbdHUHF_story.html) By Perry Bacon Jr. | The Washington Post
A bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors have joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703387904576279293334248326.html)
By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG | Wall Street Journal
Last month, President Obama convened a diverse group of business executives, mayors, law enforcement leaders, ministers and advocates at the White House to discuss a problem that threatens America's economic future�our broken immigration system.
We've tried before to fix it. President George W. Bush made comprehensive immigration reform a major legislative priority during his second term. Congressional leaders from both parties, including Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain, worked tirelessly to pass legislation. But the bill could not garner the required votes. Nor could a much narrower bill, the Dream Act, which would have granted legal status to the children of immigrants who enroll in college or the military.
These defeats have led to a conventional wisdom in Washington that bipartisan immigration reform is impossible. But a new consensus on immigration reform has emerged in the business community that could break the logjam and provide a much-needed jolt to our economy. The idea is simple: Reform the way we attract and keep talented and hard-working people from abroad to better promote economic growth.
In the global economy, the countries that attract the world's best, brightest and hardest-working will grow and succeed. Those that refuse them entry will not. America has long understood this. We would not have become a global superpower without opening our doors to immigrants�and we cannot long remain one without continuing that practice. Smart, self-motivated immigrants spur the innovations and create the jobs our economy needs to thrive. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, 25% of high-tech startups in the U.S. had at least one immigrant as a key founder. Those companies alone have created 450,000 jobs�with the vast majority of them going to Americans.
Our global competitors understand how crucial immigrants are to economic growth. They roll out the red carpet for entrepreneurs; we have no entrepreneur visa. They heavily recruit our advanced-degree students; we educate them and send them home. They woo the engineers, scientists and other skilled professionals who invent new products, launch product lines, and develop the technology of tomorrow; we erect arbitrary, senseless and bureaucratic barriers to recruitment. And we do all this even as our unemployment rate hovers around 9%.
Although each party claims to have the solution to our country's economic woes, neither has embraced a job-creation strategy based on immigration reform, which would not add a penny to the national debt. To spur them into action, a bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors has joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. In nine months the Partnership for a New American Economy has grown to more than 200 members, including companies that together employ more than 3.5 million people.
We believe in the need to secure our borders, make it possible to hold businesses accountable for verifying the status of workers, address the reality that 11 million people are here illegally and cannot be deported en masse�and increase lawful opportunities for those who want to come to this country and contribute to our prosperity. Nevertheless, our nation cannot afford to wait for Washington to get its act together and pass comprehensive immigration reform. There is too much at stake. Our economy demands that we take immediate action on the most urgent�and politically attainable�reform: making it easier for job creators to come and stay here.
Creating a visa for entrepreneurs who already have funding to start their businesses will lead directly and immediately to American jobs. Visa reforms to improve temporary and permanent pathways for companies to fill the current shortages of engineers, scientists and other specialists�whose annual visa caps are often exhausted within days of becoming available�will spur growth at existing U.S. companies.
Providing visas to the brightest foreign graduates of our universities will allow our economy to reap the rewards of their work. At the same time, allowing immigrants who succeed in college, or serve in our military, the chance to pursue a career and build their lives here legally will strengthen the long-term health of the American economy.
Finally, developing a reliable way for employers to hire guest workers�who grow the nation's food, support our $1.3 trillion tourism industry, and fill seasonal gaps across industries�will help support U.S. businesses and create additional, better-paying American jobs.
Those who focus on where the parties differ on immigration, rather than where they both agree, have paralyzed the debate in Washington for far too long. Despite this deadlock, there is an opportunity for both parties to seize upon the economics of immigration reform and focus on what all Americans agree we need: more jobs. Leaders of both parties talk about creating jobs, but they are ignoring the voices of business leaders who can actually create them�if only Congress would give them the tools.
Mr. Bloomberg, an independent, is mayor of New York City
In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio shrugs off a rough April (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arpaio-trouble-20110501,0,3084923.story) By Nicholas Riccardi | Los Angeles Times
Obama renews call for immigration action in Miami speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-renews-call-for-immigration-action-in-miami-speech/2011/04/29/AFbdHUHF_story.html) By Perry Bacon Jr. | The Washington Post
more...
learning01
05-17 11:30 AM
gc03:
Go and search for Lou Dobbs in this forum.
This forum is purely for discussing issues related to problems and difficulties of high skilled legal immigrants., affected by inefficiency of backlog centers, LCs and lack of visa numbers, GC issues and the consequent retrogression.
I haven't gone to the link you provided, because I don't need to. Has Mr.Dobbs advocated our issues, our goals anytime in his effort to highlight immigration issues? I don't think so. He does what is convenient for him and for his ratings and viewership.
So, please let's end this discussion here and please refrain from quoting and promoting the foul mouth Lou Dobbs.
I hope you will understand. Thanks.
Go and search for Lou Dobbs in this forum.
This forum is purely for discussing issues related to problems and difficulties of high skilled legal immigrants., affected by inefficiency of backlog centers, LCs and lack of visa numbers, GC issues and the consequent retrogression.
I haven't gone to the link you provided, because I don't need to. Has Mr.Dobbs advocated our issues, our goals anytime in his effort to highlight immigration issues? I don't think so. He does what is convenient for him and for his ratings and viewership.
So, please let's end this discussion here and please refrain from quoting and promoting the foul mouth Lou Dobbs.
I hope you will understand. Thanks.
hair pictures NBA wallpaper Jordan Chicago - michael jordan wallpaper.
Macaca
11-29 08:39 PM
Trade groups question new lobbying law (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/trade-groups-question-new-lobbying-law-2007-11-28.html) By Jim Snyder | The Hill, November 28, 2007
Trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say a new lobbying law could require the release of their member lists, violating freedom of association protections granted by the Constitution.
The Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Society of Association Executives wrote Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson and House Clerk Lorraine Miller on Wednesday asking for clarification in how the new law will be applied.
The potential problem relates to a section in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that would impose new lobbying disclosure rules.
The trade groups said Congress wrote the section of the law to shine light on so-called �stealth coalitions� that often use innocuous-sounding names to anonymously represent specific industries.
But the imprecision of lobbying definitions in the law could mean disclosure requirements would fall on a variety of trade groups, the groups said in the letter.
Groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobbying activities now will face criminal penalties, the letter also notes.
�The price for being wrong is extremely high,� said Steven Law, senior vice president and chief legal officer for the Chamber.
The letter was signed by Law; Jim Clarke, senior vice president of public policy for the American Society of Association Executives; and Jan Amundson, senior vice president and general counsel at NAM.
The lobbying law, passed in response to scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff and ex-Rep. Randy �Duke� Cunningham (R-Calif.), would require disclosure of any organization or entity that �actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control� in lobbying activities and contributes more than $5,000 per quarter for those efforts.
The �breadth and vagueness of the provision� require further clarification in how the new law will be applied, the letter stated.
The groups noted Supreme Court rulings that they say prohibit the government from forcing groups to disclose their membership without a compelling government interest in doing so.
�We take seriously the constitutional rights of our members to associate freely without government looking over our shoulders,� Law said.
Brett Kappel, a campaign finance and government ethics lawyer, said Congress wrote the provision to target ad-hoc associations that are formed to lobby on a particular issue.
�These typically spring up when there is legislation that would have a major economic impact on a small number of companies from a specific segment of the economy. That�s when they form the Coalition for Apple Pie and Motherhood and lobby against it,� said Kappel, who practices at the firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.
The new law �wasn�t designed to get at trade associations,� he said.
Law said the lobbying law gives the clerk and the secretary broad powers in implementing the new requirements. He said he expected further guidance from those offices by Dec. 10.
Trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say a new lobbying law could require the release of their member lists, violating freedom of association protections granted by the Constitution.
The Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Society of Association Executives wrote Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson and House Clerk Lorraine Miller on Wednesday asking for clarification in how the new law will be applied.
The potential problem relates to a section in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that would impose new lobbying disclosure rules.
The trade groups said Congress wrote the section of the law to shine light on so-called �stealth coalitions� that often use innocuous-sounding names to anonymously represent specific industries.
But the imprecision of lobbying definitions in the law could mean disclosure requirements would fall on a variety of trade groups, the groups said in the letter.
Groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobbying activities now will face criminal penalties, the letter also notes.
�The price for being wrong is extremely high,� said Steven Law, senior vice president and chief legal officer for the Chamber.
The letter was signed by Law; Jim Clarke, senior vice president of public policy for the American Society of Association Executives; and Jan Amundson, senior vice president and general counsel at NAM.
The lobbying law, passed in response to scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff and ex-Rep. Randy �Duke� Cunningham (R-Calif.), would require disclosure of any organization or entity that �actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control� in lobbying activities and contributes more than $5,000 per quarter for those efforts.
The �breadth and vagueness of the provision� require further clarification in how the new law will be applied, the letter stated.
The groups noted Supreme Court rulings that they say prohibit the government from forcing groups to disclose their membership without a compelling government interest in doing so.
�We take seriously the constitutional rights of our members to associate freely without government looking over our shoulders,� Law said.
Brett Kappel, a campaign finance and government ethics lawyer, said Congress wrote the provision to target ad-hoc associations that are formed to lobby on a particular issue.
�These typically spring up when there is legislation that would have a major economic impact on a small number of companies from a specific segment of the economy. That�s when they form the Coalition for Apple Pie and Motherhood and lobby against it,� said Kappel, who practices at the firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.
The new law �wasn�t designed to get at trade associations,� he said.
Law said the lobbying law gives the clerk and the secretary broad powers in implementing the new requirements. He said he expected further guidance from those offices by Dec. 10.
more...
Macaca
04-17 08:40 AM
To Conceal Donors, Some Political Groups Look to the Tax Code (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601352.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Tuesday, April 17, 2007
An increasing number of organizations working to influence elections also are working to hide who is paying for their activities.
Several political organizations colloquially known as 527s are relying more on or switching into 501(c)(4) groups, the type of tax-exempt entity that the tax code uses for advocacy groups.
The 527s must disclose who gives them money; 501(c)(4)s do not have that requirement.
The trend, which was discovered by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, runs counter to one of the basic tenets of modern-day election law -- broad public disclosure. Voters generally have the right to know who is helping to elect their representatives and senators. Armed with such data, they can decide for themselves who, if anyone, is trying to buy their congressional representatives.
A lot of political influence is at stake if such transformations proliferate. In last year's elections, 527s spent $143.2 million. The biggest outlays on the Democratic side came from the Service Employees International Union, Emily's List and America Votes, a coalition of liberal groups. On the Republican side, the big spenders were the Progress for America Voter Fund, the College Republican National Committee and the Presidential Coalition.
There are many reasons that 527s might want to alter their stripes. The main one has nothing to do with concealment: The Federal Election Commission has been cracking down on 527s, insisting they cannot explicitly press for the election or the defeat of candidates.
But in trying to sidestep the crackdown, several 527s have chosen an alternative structure that is harder for the public to track. Tax-exempt groups of various types have always been able to keep their donors anonymous (except to the Internal Revenue Service). The exception to this, made in 2000, is the type of electioneering funds called 527s, which have to publicly name their contributors.
In recent years, one group that has leaned more heavily on its 501(c)(4) is Progress for America, once one of the largest GOP-leaning 527s. Another group is converting outright: the Club for Growth, which supports conservative, anti-tax candidates. According to a letter obtained by the Campaign Finance Institute, the club sees many benefits in its transformation, including secrecy. "Unlike in the past, your donations to the Club will not be disclosed to the public, except in very limited circumstances," wrote Patrick J. Toomey, the group's president.
Some experts doubt that the Club for Growth will be widely imitated. An organization cannot simply change its label to a 501(c); it must also alter its function so that it no longer primarily works on elections. Last week, Public Citizen, the liberal gadfly, formally complained that Americans for Job Security should not be allowed to operate as a 501(c)(6), or trade association, because of its large-scale electoral involvement.
Veil of Secrecy
A sample of entities involved in politics that operate as 501(c), (4), (5) or (6) groups, which are tax-exempt and do not have to disclose their donors publicly.
Organization and Examples of 2006 political activity
AFL-CIO Spent about $40 million on its pro-Democratic political program.
Americans for Job Security Ran an estimated $1.5 million in ads on behalf of then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).
Chamber of Commerce Spent $10 million on ads thanking largely GOP incumbents for pro-business positions.
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund Spent $1.6 million on election-related activity, including voter education and mobilization.
Focus on Family Action Sponsored radio ads in several competitive Senate races.
League of Conservation Voters Spent more than $1 million on TV ads, mailings and other political outreach.
NARAL Spent more than $740,000, mostly to rent voter lists for Internet communications.
National Rifle Association Campaign war chest (excluding PAC funds) was reportedly $9 million.
SOURCE: Campaign Finance Instititue
An increasing number of organizations working to influence elections also are working to hide who is paying for their activities.
Several political organizations colloquially known as 527s are relying more on or switching into 501(c)(4) groups, the type of tax-exempt entity that the tax code uses for advocacy groups.
The 527s must disclose who gives them money; 501(c)(4)s do not have that requirement.
The trend, which was discovered by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, runs counter to one of the basic tenets of modern-day election law -- broad public disclosure. Voters generally have the right to know who is helping to elect their representatives and senators. Armed with such data, they can decide for themselves who, if anyone, is trying to buy their congressional representatives.
A lot of political influence is at stake if such transformations proliferate. In last year's elections, 527s spent $143.2 million. The biggest outlays on the Democratic side came from the Service Employees International Union, Emily's List and America Votes, a coalition of liberal groups. On the Republican side, the big spenders were the Progress for America Voter Fund, the College Republican National Committee and the Presidential Coalition.
There are many reasons that 527s might want to alter their stripes. The main one has nothing to do with concealment: The Federal Election Commission has been cracking down on 527s, insisting they cannot explicitly press for the election or the defeat of candidates.
But in trying to sidestep the crackdown, several 527s have chosen an alternative structure that is harder for the public to track. Tax-exempt groups of various types have always been able to keep their donors anonymous (except to the Internal Revenue Service). The exception to this, made in 2000, is the type of electioneering funds called 527s, which have to publicly name their contributors.
In recent years, one group that has leaned more heavily on its 501(c)(4) is Progress for America, once one of the largest GOP-leaning 527s. Another group is converting outright: the Club for Growth, which supports conservative, anti-tax candidates. According to a letter obtained by the Campaign Finance Institute, the club sees many benefits in its transformation, including secrecy. "Unlike in the past, your donations to the Club will not be disclosed to the public, except in very limited circumstances," wrote Patrick J. Toomey, the group's president.
Some experts doubt that the Club for Growth will be widely imitated. An organization cannot simply change its label to a 501(c); it must also alter its function so that it no longer primarily works on elections. Last week, Public Citizen, the liberal gadfly, formally complained that Americans for Job Security should not be allowed to operate as a 501(c)(6), or trade association, because of its large-scale electoral involvement.
Veil of Secrecy
A sample of entities involved in politics that operate as 501(c), (4), (5) or (6) groups, which are tax-exempt and do not have to disclose their donors publicly.
Organization and Examples of 2006 political activity
AFL-CIO Spent about $40 million on its pro-Democratic political program.
Americans for Job Security Ran an estimated $1.5 million in ads on behalf of then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).
Chamber of Commerce Spent $10 million on ads thanking largely GOP incumbents for pro-business positions.
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund Spent $1.6 million on election-related activity, including voter education and mobilization.
Focus on Family Action Sponsored radio ads in several competitive Senate races.
League of Conservation Voters Spent more than $1 million on TV ads, mailings and other political outreach.
NARAL Spent more than $740,000, mostly to rent voter lists for Internet communications.
National Rifle Association Campaign war chest (excluding PAC funds) was reportedly $9 million.
SOURCE: Campaign Finance Instititue
hot NBA Legend Jordan Wallpaper 2
wandmaker
08-09 02:04 AM
Persons staying on will receive as much SHIT (Special High
Intensity Training) as possible. Management has
always prided itself on the amount of SHIT it gives
employees. Should you feel that you do not receive
enough SHIT, please bring to the attention of your
Supervisor. They have been trained to give you all
the SHIT you can handle.
Good one :D For many unskilled, it is the reality.
Intensity Training) as possible. Management has
always prided itself on the amount of SHIT it gives
employees. Should you feel that you do not receive
enough SHIT, please bring to the attention of your
Supervisor. They have been trained to give you all
the SHIT you can handle.
Good one :D For many unskilled, it is the reality.
more...
house Sport Wallpapers - Jordan
gc4me
08-11 04:33 PM
Two office colleagues, a British and an Indian are having their lunch in a restaurant . The Indian says," You know my parents are forcing me to get married to this so called homely girl from a village whom I haven't even met once. We call this arranged marriage. I don't want to marry a girl whom I don't love...I told them this quite openly and since then I have a hell lot of family problems."
The British said, "So you think there are no problems in a love marriage?...
Let me tell you my story. I married a widow with a daughter whom I deeply loved and dated for 3 years. After a couple of years, my father fell in love with my step-daughter & married her and so my father became my son-in-law and I became my father's father-in-law. My daughter is my mother and my wife became my grandmother. More problems occurred when I had a son. My son is my father's brother and so he's my uncle. Situations turned worse when my father had a son. Now my father's son i.e. my brother is my grandson. Ultimately, I have become my own grand father and I am my own grandson. And you say you have family problems.... Give me a break!!"
The British said, "So you think there are no problems in a love marriage?...
Let me tell you my story. I married a widow with a daughter whom I deeply loved and dated for 3 years. After a couple of years, my father fell in love with my step-daughter & married her and so my father became my son-in-law and I became my father's father-in-law. My daughter is my mother and my wife became my grandmother. More problems occurred when I had a son. My son is my father's brother and so he's my uncle. Situations turned worse when my father had a son. Now my father's son i.e. my brother is my grandson. Ultimately, I have become my own grand father and I am my own grandson. And you say you have family problems.... Give me a break!!"
tattoo Mr_Jordan_by_Rikola wallpaper
adusumilli
08-06 07:38 AM
see this pisses me off. why does a guy who studied using India government money and complaining that US govt. is not doing anything for him. First he should go back to India a pay back his dues he got from studying in IIT.
more...
pictures Sport Wallpapers - Jordan
pitha
01-28 09:57 AM
lou dobbs is not a reporter, dont get confused. He is an opinion dispenser. Just like Rush Limbaug, Sean Hanity, Glen Beck etc. But either ways he is after us in immigration.
dresses Download this wallpaper and
kshitijnt
06-26 01:33 PM
Dear IV Members, Kindly be respectful to others even if you do not agree with their opinion. I saw ValidIV was give a lot of negative reputation since he disagreed with views of many people. KIndly do not do so. The debate should be respectful with honorable disagreement.
more...
makeup Tags: jordan, live wallpapers
sc3
07-14 12:57 PM
USCIS has not changed any law they have re-interpreted an existing law which was unclear and some folks have said that CIS interprets laws based on inputs from congress to understand the intent behind the law. If you complain to CIS that you have changed law they will send you a polite reply that we do not make any laws we just implement it.
* When was it unclear?
* Why did it take so long for USCIS to see that the law was unclear?
* What caused USCIS to realize that the law was unclear?
* What caused them to change their interpretation?
* How did USCIS use up all of EB2-I numbers in the very first quarter? (Very illegal thing to do)
Come on, dont be so picky. You know what I mean when I said USCIS changed the law. Dont argue on syntax.
* When was it unclear?
* Why did it take so long for USCIS to see that the law was unclear?
* What caused USCIS to realize that the law was unclear?
* What caused them to change their interpretation?
* How did USCIS use up all of EB2-I numbers in the very first quarter? (Very illegal thing to do)
Come on, dont be so picky. You know what I mean when I said USCIS changed the law. Dont argue on syntax.
girlfriend michael jordan wallpaper
pd_recapturing
04-15 02:39 PM
Mariner555 is right. When I was buying a house, my friend also bought a house at the same time. he bought a big brand new single family and I bought a smaller old townhouse (2004 built). His house did cost hom around 200k more than mine. Now, after 5 months, when I asked him, how is life, he lamented that whole of his income goes towards the mortgage and nothing left for other activities. In my opinion, one shud buy house when he/she can save enough to enjoy other aspects of life after paying the mortgage. I have seen ppl cursing their decision to buy house because of the mortgage. I do not think that its anything to do with housing market.
And finally believe me, living in your own house is a great feeling so go for it...:)
And finally believe me, living in your own house is a great feeling so go for it...:)
hairstyles Jordan Motorsport 23 Sneaker
lvgc
07-14 01:29 PM
Table 6 at
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR07.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR07.shtm
Administrator2
04-06 09:03 PM
This bill seems to require a labor certification like process for every H1B extension. All of us who have gone through labor certification know how painful the initial data collection is when it comes to proving unavailability of US workers. How many employers will want to or be able to get a labor certification like process done for every H1 extension?
Anti-H1B lobby wants to make the system so difficult that it will be impossible to complete all the requirements. Their strategy is, if they cannot eliminate H-1B program, they will make in non-workable. Also, this bill was in the making for more than two years. They are timing their articles in the press with this bill because of a reason. Don't simply reject it by saying that "this is not going to pass". Taking this bill lightly will be a mistake.
Please inform your friends, colleagues and employer about this very serious problem.
Anti-H1B lobby wants to make the system so difficult that it will be impossible to complete all the requirements. Their strategy is, if they cannot eliminate H-1B program, they will make in non-workable. Also, this bill was in the making for more than two years. They are timing their articles in the press with this bill because of a reason. Don't simply reject it by saying that "this is not going to pass". Taking this bill lightly will be a mistake.
Please inform your friends, colleagues and employer about this very serious problem.
nogc_noproblem
08-26 07:25 PM
Something to think about: "How To Save the Government $5 Million!"
A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, lasting until he is 80 years old.
Assuming the next president lives to age 80:
Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension, as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president.
Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms, so would receive $4,973,800 in pension.
Therefore, it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November.
A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, lasting until he is 80 years old.
Assuming the next president lives to age 80:
Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension, as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president.
Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms, so would receive $4,973,800 in pension.
Therefore, it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November.
No comments:
Post a Comment