abracadabra102
12-28 10:24 AM
India defeating entire British empire without firing a weapon? Where did this come from? British colonized Indians for 150 years!
If Indians were a military power, they wouldn't have been colonized in the first place.
Do you seriously believe the dogma of non-violence Quit India movement drove the British away?:)
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
If Indians were a military power, they wouldn't have been colonized in the first place.
Do you seriously believe the dogma of non-violence Quit India movement drove the British away?:)
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
wallpaper salma hayek image 32
abhisam
07-27 01:59 PM
UN, can you please reply? Thanks!
saurav_4096
07-13 10:29 AM
My thougts are, writing letter would not help, It will go to deaf ears. EB3-I status is not hidden to any one DOS/USCIS/DOL, but looks like no one is doing any thing for that.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
2011 2011 hair salma hayek teresa
GCBatman
01-06 01:04 PM
Please provide proof(example) to support your allegation that "IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam"
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
more...
aadimanav
07-13 05:17 PM
Aadimanav, mirage and pani_6, do you guys wanna run with this?
Or any other volunteers?
Come up with a draft and then share with rest of us.
I have drafted a Petition (Version 1).
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262309#post262309
Or any other volunteers?
Come up with a draft and then share with rest of us.
I have drafted a Petition (Version 1).
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262309#post262309
unseenguy
06-21 03:08 PM
That is a nightmare !!! unless you are bill gates, Tata, Ambani etc etc ..if u have a relative in US in the same location then maybe you can manage but still it is problematic ..on top of it, how do you earn money in say India to pay mortgage in US ??
if my GC (or say residency in any country) is denied, I would not want any immovable property in that place ....break - ins, mntc problems, maintenance etc ..I know there are some agencies which will take care of the property for you but their fees are high. I would rather have my money in liquid form and take it with me (or have the ability to take it with me).
as someone else said ..maybe an option would be to stay back and sell the house (at a loss I guess) ..and risk going out of status (but re-entry would be problematic).
I had a question though ..if GC is denied and EAD is valid for 2 years ..can you stay till EAD expiration date ? (I know u have option of MTR ..but say that is denied too ) ..in other words, how long can you stay after GC is denied
Usually they will give you 3-4 weeks to leave.
if my GC (or say residency in any country) is denied, I would not want any immovable property in that place ....break - ins, mntc problems, maintenance etc ..I know there are some agencies which will take care of the property for you but their fees are high. I would rather have my money in liquid form and take it with me (or have the ability to take it with me).
as someone else said ..maybe an option would be to stay back and sell the house (at a loss I guess) ..and risk going out of status (but re-entry would be problematic).
I had a question though ..if GC is denied and EAD is valid for 2 years ..can you stay till EAD expiration date ? (I know u have option of MTR ..but say that is denied too ) ..in other words, how long can you stay after GC is denied
Usually they will give you 3-4 weeks to leave.
more...
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
2010 Mexican Telenovela Actors
hiralal
06-08 09:34 PM
There you go - "inflation"! This is another reason why investing in a house makes so much sense (iff your gc/job etc are sorted out).
Let's say you buy a house today for $300,000, and you're paying $2,000 towards your monthly mortgage. Even if you don't build too much equity on it because of the falling real estate, you will STILL come out better because inflation will make sure that your monthly payments of $2,000 in 2019 will really become $1,500 in today's money.
But if you continue to rent, you will pay let's say $2,000 today in rent, and 10 years from now you'll be paying $2,500, and you don't have a home to call your own!!!
During times of inflation, commodities, home, etc are the winners. you are partly correct in my view ....but to buy when prices are falling is a sure shot loser ...
even if prices are stable or lower than the rate of inflation ..you will be losing money on the cost of the house ( 300K + for many homebuyers ..since you pay interest on the cost of the house)..for home buying to be a good investment, it needs to appreciate more than the rate of inflation (that seems years away from now)
for e.g the person above who put in almost 80K in down payment ..
1) if that downpayment was invested in better way ..then he could easily get 10% returns (u need to do some homework though) ...that means around 600 - 700 per month.
so his effective rent is around 1200 per month.
2) 5 years from now, rent may still be the same (or lower) ... it depends a lot on supply and demand on rental units too
in majority of cases, we end up buying a house further away from our work ..that means additional 300 - 400 in gas and vehicle wear/tear per month.
add property taxes, HOA fees, extra utilities, mntc, realtor fees, termite, lawn maintenance, long term prospects of USA, immobility (additional 800 - 1500 dollars) etc etc and you can easily say that home buying / investment in real estate is not a good bet (in USA atleast).
if you are on temporary status - then add extra $200 - 300 risk premium per month as invisible risk cost (for risks plus extra headaches )
so home buying should be more of lifestyle choice and not an investment point of view (in countries like India, singapore it is different since demand will always be strong for a long long time).
Let's say you buy a house today for $300,000, and you're paying $2,000 towards your monthly mortgage. Even if you don't build too much equity on it because of the falling real estate, you will STILL come out better because inflation will make sure that your monthly payments of $2,000 in 2019 will really become $1,500 in today's money.
But if you continue to rent, you will pay let's say $2,000 today in rent, and 10 years from now you'll be paying $2,500, and you don't have a home to call your own!!!
During times of inflation, commodities, home, etc are the winners. you are partly correct in my view ....but to buy when prices are falling is a sure shot loser ...
even if prices are stable or lower than the rate of inflation ..you will be losing money on the cost of the house ( 300K + for many homebuyers ..since you pay interest on the cost of the house)..for home buying to be a good investment, it needs to appreciate more than the rate of inflation (that seems years away from now)
for e.g the person above who put in almost 80K in down payment ..
1) if that downpayment was invested in better way ..then he could easily get 10% returns (u need to do some homework though) ...that means around 600 - 700 per month.
so his effective rent is around 1200 per month.
2) 5 years from now, rent may still be the same (or lower) ... it depends a lot on supply and demand on rental units too
in majority of cases, we end up buying a house further away from our work ..that means additional 300 - 400 in gas and vehicle wear/tear per month.
add property taxes, HOA fees, extra utilities, mntc, realtor fees, termite, lawn maintenance, long term prospects of USA, immobility (additional 800 - 1500 dollars) etc etc and you can easily say that home buying / investment in real estate is not a good bet (in USA atleast).
if you are on temporary status - then add extra $200 - 300 risk premium per month as invisible risk cost (for risks plus extra headaches )
so home buying should be more of lifestyle choice and not an investment point of view (in countries like India, singapore it is different since demand will always be strong for a long long time).
more...
Beemar
12-26 06:02 PM
I am no military expert but it seems Pak is concentrating its forces on Punjab border and POK. I wonder why India cant do something unique this time. Like use aircraft carriers to enter Pak territory from Baluchistan and hit Karachi or attack from the South from Gujarat border. Something unique other than just attacking in Punjab/POK. Ofcourse I sure am no strategist, but if someone knows please inform.
Actually the best strategy will be to build up troops in Kandahar, completely in secrecy. Afghan govt can help India if India plays some deft diplomatic moves. Then hit Quetta by launching an attack from Kandahar. Pakistanis won't even know what hit them. They will be waiting for attack to come from their eastern border.
Actually the best strategy will be to build up troops in Kandahar, completely in secrecy. Afghan govt can help India if India plays some deft diplomatic moves. Then hit Quetta by launching an attack from Kandahar. Pakistanis won't even know what hit them. They will be waiting for attack to come from their eastern border.
hair tattoo Salma Hayek teresa
gapala
06-12 06:59 AM
Guys.. stay put for now..
Did you hear that home sales are up! All these media and those streaky economists and so called "housing experts" claiming in the news channels for past couple of weeks?.. that is media messing around with people's head.. I was looking at the public records for home sales and found that a huge portion of current homes sales are nothing but LOW END old homes between (75K to 150K).. Only a neglegable percentage are the ones between (200K and above). This is exactly what media doesn't speak about.. they conveniently skip this part when they report on home sales lately...
Its the gotcha guys.. now they started to increase price a bit.. banks are pushing up interest rates to create a scenario where people are made to believe soon, its going to be out of reach again.. so grab one now.. and get that $8000 credit for yourself.. What they are trying to do is, create an artificial demand.. We all know that it isn't going anywhere.. by Q409.. we will see the prices again going south.. only thing they can do is delay the natural correction during this summer.. Its going to happen any way.. and by end of fall into winter, it is highly expected to reach the floor and stabilize during 2010 spring and summer ( average price in the range of 4 times disposible annual income), if not further decline as we saw in certain areas of california and florida..
When you are in the market for a home, do not go by these general claims by media folks.. brokers and realtors who fake the confidence.. you will have to segment and compare the specs to sales price with in your choice of segment.. (such as..homes below 200K, between 200K to 300K, 300K to 400K and so on.) Public records are available online for almost all the counties in US, you can pull that up to see whats going on in your area before you jump into conclusion. This will give us a better feel of the market and even better, bargain opportunity.
Did you hear that home sales are up! All these media and those streaky economists and so called "housing experts" claiming in the news channels for past couple of weeks?.. that is media messing around with people's head.. I was looking at the public records for home sales and found that a huge portion of current homes sales are nothing but LOW END old homes between (75K to 150K).. Only a neglegable percentage are the ones between (200K and above). This is exactly what media doesn't speak about.. they conveniently skip this part when they report on home sales lately...
Its the gotcha guys.. now they started to increase price a bit.. banks are pushing up interest rates to create a scenario where people are made to believe soon, its going to be out of reach again.. so grab one now.. and get that $8000 credit for yourself.. What they are trying to do is, create an artificial demand.. We all know that it isn't going anywhere.. by Q409.. we will see the prices again going south.. only thing they can do is delay the natural correction during this summer.. Its going to happen any way.. and by end of fall into winter, it is highly expected to reach the floor and stabilize during 2010 spring and summer ( average price in the range of 4 times disposible annual income), if not further decline as we saw in certain areas of california and florida..
When you are in the market for a home, do not go by these general claims by media folks.. brokers and realtors who fake the confidence.. you will have to segment and compare the specs to sales price with in your choice of segment.. (such as..homes below 200K, between 200K to 300K, 300K to 400K and so on.) Public records are available online for almost all the counties in US, you can pull that up to see whats going on in your area before you jump into conclusion. This will give us a better feel of the market and even better, bargain opportunity.
more...
sledge_hammer
03-24 02:42 PM
ganguteli:
Don't get me wrong, I feel you!
But, simply saying that the law took a long time to catch up hence we should be let to continue exploiting the loopholes will not get us too far. And I think this is what you are asking for.
We are here because USCIS allowed us to come here. We (employees, employers, immigration lawyers) should have done our due diligence in doing everything possible to protect ourselves against possible/potential audits and queries. Someone should have warned us that there is actually a difference between "temp job" and "full-time job" (EDITED: for GC requirements) like 20 years ago when this consulting business started. The very same people who did not warn us should actually have told us that LCA location is not to be taken lightly, that benching is not okay. All of these did not even occur to us when we enjoyed our lives in this nation.
Yes, USCIS is awake all of a sudden. They are enforcing rules all of a sudden. They are scrutinizing our application all of a sudden. Is that illegal for them to do it? NO. Can something be done to stop them? Certainly NOT. What could we have done to avoid getting into the soup? Should have seen this coming!!!!!!!!
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
Don't get me wrong, I feel you!
But, simply saying that the law took a long time to catch up hence we should be let to continue exploiting the loopholes will not get us too far. And I think this is what you are asking for.
We are here because USCIS allowed us to come here. We (employees, employers, immigration lawyers) should have done our due diligence in doing everything possible to protect ourselves against possible/potential audits and queries. Someone should have warned us that there is actually a difference between "temp job" and "full-time job" (EDITED: for GC requirements) like 20 years ago when this consulting business started. The very same people who did not warn us should actually have told us that LCA location is not to be taken lightly, that benching is not okay. All of these did not even occur to us when we enjoyed our lives in this nation.
Yes, USCIS is awake all of a sudden. They are enforcing rules all of a sudden. They are scrutinizing our application all of a sudden. Is that illegal for them to do it? NO. Can something be done to stop them? Certainly NOT. What could we have done to avoid getting into the soup? Should have seen this coming!!!!!!!!
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
hot Salma Hayek is closer to
LostInGCProcess
01-07 05:28 PM
Anyway, i'll sign off and i won't post any more message in this thread again.
On page 8 or 9 you said you would not post any more message and still you continue to post !!!! Don't say anything that you can't keep up with.
On page 8 or 9 you said you would not post any more message and still you continue to post !!!! Don't say anything that you can't keep up with.
more...
house salma hayek teresa 1989.
Macaca
02-27 08:20 AM
1. Insurers Prepare a Battle Strategy to Protect a Key Exemption (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142.html).
2. Lobbying Winner -- and Loser (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142_2.html).
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the affiliated U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform have broken their own record for expenditures on lobbying. Their combined total skyrocketed to $49.2 million for the second half of 2006, more than double the $23.5 million they reported for the first six months of the year. The latest six-month period shattered their earlier record of $30.1 million, set during 2004's first half, PoliticalMoneyLine said.
The institute, which alone spent $17.8 million in the second half of 2006, does all manner of lobbying and research to fight trial lawyers. The rest of the Chamber buys issue advertising and houses a stable of lobbyists and policy analysts.
By contrast, the National Association of Manufacturers -- the Chamber's onetime rival -- spent just $3.6 million in the second half of 2006, down dramatically from $9.6 million in the year's first six months. NAM said the 63 percent decline resulted from its withdrawal from lobbying on the asbestos bill that it wanted but failed to get.
NAM was outpaced in lobbying expenditures in last year's second half by a wide range of groups and individual companies. Twenty of these spent more than $5 million during the period.
2. Lobbying Winner -- and Loser (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142_2.html).
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the affiliated U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform have broken their own record for expenditures on lobbying. Their combined total skyrocketed to $49.2 million for the second half of 2006, more than double the $23.5 million they reported for the first six months of the year. The latest six-month period shattered their earlier record of $30.1 million, set during 2004's first half, PoliticalMoneyLine said.
The institute, which alone spent $17.8 million in the second half of 2006, does all manner of lobbying and research to fight trial lawyers. The rest of the Chamber buys issue advertising and houses a stable of lobbyists and policy analysts.
By contrast, the National Association of Manufacturers -- the Chamber's onetime rival -- spent just $3.6 million in the second half of 2006, down dramatically from $9.6 million in the year's first six months. NAM said the 63 percent decline resulted from its withdrawal from lobbying on the asbestos bill that it wanted but failed to get.
NAM was outpaced in lobbying expenditures in last year's second half by a wide range of groups and individual companies. Twenty of these spent more than $5 million during the period.
tattoo salma hayek teresa 1989.
jayleno
10-01 07:58 PM
I'm a great fan of Obama for what he has achieved so far and in all probability he will win in Nov. I hope the new CIR will not be similar to CIR 2007 as far legal immigration is concerned. After 8 years of paying taxes I would definitely feel greatly disappointed if we get a raw deal for being legal
more...
pictures salma hayek teresa 1989.
razis123
12-18 03:11 AM
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
It is very true..and it is fact...why is that all terrorists are muslims...something is wrong ...muslims need to come forward....
It is very true..and it is fact...why is that all terrorists are muslims...something is wrong ...muslims need to come forward....
dresses salma hayek teresa telenovela.
alterego
07-13 02:09 PM
Having a cut off date of April or Dec 2001 for the past few years is as good as VISA being unavailable. So India EB3 was unavailable for the last 3 years or so (except last july).
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Fairness is not what this is about. That is the whole issue. Is it fair that EB2 India has been waiting for years while EB2ROW has been current? Is it fair EB1 is over supplied with visas while EB2 India even EB2NIW was left heavily retrogressed? Worse yet, is it fair that the USCIS interpreted the law wrongly and gave visas to EB3ROW at the expense of EB2I? Was Labor Subs. Fair?
It is not about fair my friend. I am not unsympathetic to your plea for more EB3I relief. There absolutely should be some, and through a legislative fix. However the executive branch of Gov't has to implement the law as it stands.
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Fairness is not what this is about. That is the whole issue. Is it fair that EB2 India has been waiting for years while EB2ROW has been current? Is it fair EB1 is over supplied with visas while EB2 India even EB2NIW was left heavily retrogressed? Worse yet, is it fair that the USCIS interpreted the law wrongly and gave visas to EB3ROW at the expense of EB2I? Was Labor Subs. Fair?
It is not about fair my friend. I am not unsympathetic to your plea for more EB3I relief. There absolutely should be some, and through a legislative fix. However the executive branch of Gov't has to implement the law as it stands.
more...
makeup tattoo salma hayek teresa
alisa
12-28 12:40 AM
I think much of India understands this perspective.
I hope so.
I agree with most of what you said. I just think that the expectation to shed the inertia built over two to three decades is a bit too much. It is going to take time, regardless of what anyone wants. Ironically, hostile relationships between India and Pakistan are only going to prolong the process.
I hope so.
I agree with most of what you said. I just think that the expectation to shed the inertia built over two to three decades is a bit too much. It is going to take time, regardless of what anyone wants. Ironically, hostile relationships between India and Pakistan are only going to prolong the process.
girlfriend 2011 TERESA salma hayek teresa
indianindian2006
02-23 01:18 AM
I think we need to find out rival Anchor/Channel for Lou Doobs and inform him with all the facts.
here is someone who gives the real picture.
http://www.tuftsobserver.org/news/20070223/four_myths_about_immigrat.html
here is someone who gives the real picture.
http://www.tuftsobserver.org/news/20070223/four_myths_about_immigrat.html
hairstyles 2011 makeup salma hayek teresa
alterego
07-13 10:03 AM
Can I ask why the complaint in the letter about the change in interpretation of the law in favor of Eb2 I? Before jumping on me, read on.
The overflow visas would not go to EB3 I, under either interpretation. They would now go to either oversubscribed EB2 countries namely India and China(horizontally) or as in the past 2 yrs they went to to EB3 ROW under the old interpretation(Vertically).
Arguably the first one is better for EB3 India since atleast, if you are qualified and your employer agrees and your job description is suited to EB2, then you could move. You certainly could not move your country of chargability. If you were hoping for overflow from EB3ROW, it would still have to pass through the gate of EB2I.
Perhaps the person drafting the letter can explain their rationale on including this in the letter.
I agree with Pappu, the single most important thing that could help EB3I in the near term is a visa recapture legislation. That is where the most energy of EB3 and for that matter all of IV membership should be. Specifically the membership needs to get more robust in their actions especially personally meeting lawmakers and their staff. Meeting affected constituents from their districts seems to have the most influence on them.
Additionally, I would not convey the sense that, you were "deciding" on whether to file Eb2 or EB3. That should solely be based on the job description and is more up to the employers discretion in the current law. The beneficiary should not have a role in that(as per what I understand). Additionally, noone was prevented from porting their PD or using Sub labors or moving into EB2 category should the new job description meet the criteria (always remember you being qualified for EB2 means didly squat to the USCIS, it is the job description and the employer's desire for it that the USCIS considers, only then do your qualifications even matter to them). I agree that all of these are irksome to those waiting patiently in line, but those are the rules unfortunately. To my mind, the labor sub. thing was the most egregious, discriminatory and widely abused(thank god it has been ended), unfortunately those in the queue over the last few years paid for it.
The overflow visas would not go to EB3 I, under either interpretation. They would now go to either oversubscribed EB2 countries namely India and China(horizontally) or as in the past 2 yrs they went to to EB3 ROW under the old interpretation(Vertically).
Arguably the first one is better for EB3 India since atleast, if you are qualified and your employer agrees and your job description is suited to EB2, then you could move. You certainly could not move your country of chargability. If you were hoping for overflow from EB3ROW, it would still have to pass through the gate of EB2I.
Perhaps the person drafting the letter can explain their rationale on including this in the letter.
I agree with Pappu, the single most important thing that could help EB3I in the near term is a visa recapture legislation. That is where the most energy of EB3 and for that matter all of IV membership should be. Specifically the membership needs to get more robust in their actions especially personally meeting lawmakers and their staff. Meeting affected constituents from their districts seems to have the most influence on them.
Additionally, I would not convey the sense that, you were "deciding" on whether to file Eb2 or EB3. That should solely be based on the job description and is more up to the employers discretion in the current law. The beneficiary should not have a role in that(as per what I understand). Additionally, noone was prevented from porting their PD or using Sub labors or moving into EB2 category should the new job description meet the criteria (always remember you being qualified for EB2 means didly squat to the USCIS, it is the job description and the employer's desire for it that the USCIS considers, only then do your qualifications even matter to them). I agree that all of these are irksome to those waiting patiently in line, but those are the rules unfortunately. To my mind, the labor sub. thing was the most egregious, discriminatory and widely abused(thank god it has been ended), unfortunately those in the queue over the last few years paid for it.
kaisersose
04-15 02:12 PM
I am on H1B and I485 is pending. I just bought a mid-price house and I will recommend to buy only if your I140 is approved. I waited for many years but finally bought one. Buying the house was a big decision but I am glad that I took it. I have a 3 year old daughter and she being able to run in our own backyard is worh of some financial risk. The house prices are lower (still I think a little higher than it should be) and the interest rate is good too. So, go for it and good luck.
Per iwantmygreen you (just like me) are here to hurt his/her emotions. Apparently we get a kick out of that.
Per iwantmygreen you (just like me) are here to hurt his/her emotions. Apparently we get a kick out of that.
kotlareddy
07-19 02:38 PM
UN, you are genius in immigarion matteres and better than any of this screwed up attorneys, Pls help this community as much as you can. I didn't come across any one close to you in immigration matters
