Macaca
02-29 07:21 AM
In Defense of Lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803232.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Charles Krauthammer | WP, Feb 29
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
wallpaper Season highlights: I really
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
abcdgc
12-27 01:17 AM
You are right about the lack of governance in Pakistan. And that there are more personalities and less institutions.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
Let me give you a proof about Kayani, not that you will agree with it, but I will give it a shot anyways.
Pakistan PM agreed to send ISI DG to India when he spoke with Indian PM. Later Zardari also publicly agreed to send ISI DG. Next day the three i.e. Gilani, Zardari and Kaayani had a meeting. After the meeting Pakistan announced that Pakistan will not send ISI DG to India. Now, if Gilani and Zardari agreed to send ISI DG, why the conclusion of the meeting was with the decision that ISI DG will not go to India. It was the starting point of escalation. Who triggered it? Kaayani. This is a well covered report. The point is, if sending ISI DG could deescalate the situation, and if India is asking to send ISI DG, why would Pakistan not send ISI DG even after PM and President agreed sending Pasha to India? Kaayani was himself ISI chief when Musharraf was President/Army Chief. The point is Hamid Gul, Kaayni and Pasha are all same group of cheats.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
Let me give you a proof about Kayani, not that you will agree with it, but I will give it a shot anyways.
Pakistan PM agreed to send ISI DG to India when he spoke with Indian PM. Later Zardari also publicly agreed to send ISI DG. Next day the three i.e. Gilani, Zardari and Kaayani had a meeting. After the meeting Pakistan announced that Pakistan will not send ISI DG to India. Now, if Gilani and Zardari agreed to send ISI DG, why the conclusion of the meeting was with the decision that ISI DG will not go to India. It was the starting point of escalation. Who triggered it? Kaayani. This is a well covered report. The point is, if sending ISI DG could deescalate the situation, and if India is asking to send ISI DG, why would Pakistan not send ISI DG even after PM and President agreed sending Pasha to India? Kaayani was himself ISI chief when Musharraf was President/Army Chief. The point is Hamid Gul, Kaayni and Pasha are all same group of cheats.
2011 True Blood Season 3 Teaser
senthil1
05-17 02:08 PM
Anyhow there are more chances for increasing H1b numbers at this situation with some restrictions(Our Indian companies will easily find a loophole for any law).Banning of H1B for bodyshopping or consulting will be impossible. Wait and watch for how CIRcus unfolds for next few weeks.
Of course I don't work for a consulting company. And if I did I wouldn't be here UNLESS I WAS EMPLOYED 100% FROM DAY ONE.
What people look like doesn't matter in regards to the H-1B. You are implying that I am doing something wrong in encouraging people TO OBEY THE LAW. That says a lot more of you and your standards than anything else. People are not committing crimes by being consultants. SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
Of course I don't work for a consulting company. And if I did I wouldn't be here UNLESS I WAS EMPLOYED 100% FROM DAY ONE.
What people look like doesn't matter in regards to the H-1B. You are implying that I am doing something wrong in encouraging people TO OBEY THE LAW. That says a lot more of you and your standards than anything else. People are not committing crimes by being consultants. SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
more...
satishku_2000
05-16 05:06 PM
Both are problems. The misuse of H-1B visa petitions prevent honest people from obtaining such a visa. That is not right. The issue of the illegal immigrants in this country is an ugly one as well. In my personal opinion, I do not believe any talks of amnesty should affect people with green card petitions pending. People given amnesty should go to the very back of the line and pay a serious fine on top of that.
Whether you like it or not legalization will affect all petetions . If you know enough about 245i provision you would understand how it affects every one legal or illegal or skilled or unskilled . Its not about when an undocumented person will get his GC , even making so many people eligible for filing applications itself will make things worse. Imagine how long it will take for issue of receipt notices for all these petetions . If you think legalization will not affect your green card petetion processing then you are simply dreaming.
Whether you like it or not legalization will affect all petetions . If you know enough about 245i provision you would understand how it affects every one legal or illegal or skilled or unskilled . Its not about when an undocumented person will get his GC , even making so many people eligible for filing applications itself will make things worse. Imagine how long it will take for issue of receipt notices for all these petetions . If you think legalization will not affect your green card petetion processing then you are simply dreaming.
rheoretro
11-12 02:28 PM
rheoretro Surely there is a distinction between illegal immigrants and Latinos (though I am not sure how thick is the line) but I did say that we cannot have even a whiff of support for illegal immigration be it from any country, including India.
It is unfortunate that the legal reform package cannot be passed without the CIR and one of the reasons behind that is the tendency of pro-immigration groups to paint both forms of immigration with the same brush.
A few days ago, I received an email from SAALT (South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow), urging me to lend support to stop passing the anti-immigration bill. Their logic was that there are millions of illegal Indian immigrants as well so we should support them. When I countered them saying that essentially you are asking us to support something based on whether they are "our crooks or not" and not on the basis of whether it is right or wrong, their reply essentially was that we know this better than you so just listen to our argument and support us.
Bottom line? Illegal immigration in any form is not acceptable.
English_August: Actually, it is a very thick line between legal and illegal immigration, as far as Latinos are concerned. There has been strong Latino/Hispanic immigration (legal) into the US for several decades now, if not a whole century, which is also possible. There are third and fourth generation people in the US of Latino/Hispanic ancestry. It's just that there was a serious influx of illegal immigrants in the US over the last ten to fifteen years, and the media makes it seem as if they are all illegal. That is not true.
I agree - illegal immigration in any and every form is unacceptable. I am familiar with SAALT, including their executive director, Deepa Iyer. While I admire the community outreach work that they do, I too differ with them over a blanket amnesty. BTW, it was Deepa who corrected my false impression recently. The numbers for illegal immigrants from India are astoundingly high - the estimate is between 300,000 and 400,000. That number compares with the number of people in the legal immigrant EB pipeline from India, probably.
At the end of the day, it, sadly, does come down to numbers. Even in 1986, in Reagan's time when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was passed, amnesty of some form was given to people who had either entered the country illegally or had over-stayed their visas. This time the number of illegal immigrants is much higher, and Congress can't ignore this problem anymore. At least the American people seem to have clearly told Congress to put aside petty partisan squabbling, and get the people's work done on Capitol Hill.
I am simply amazed by this dismal statistic - IV claims that there are about half a million people stuck in immigration backlogs/retrogression. Then why does IV have a membership that merely represents barely 1% of this pool? 6500 members isn't enough. Capitol Hill treats you differently if you say that you have 20,000 or 30,000 members...you get more attention.
It is unfortunate that the legal reform package cannot be passed without the CIR and one of the reasons behind that is the tendency of pro-immigration groups to paint both forms of immigration with the same brush.
A few days ago, I received an email from SAALT (South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow), urging me to lend support to stop passing the anti-immigration bill. Their logic was that there are millions of illegal Indian immigrants as well so we should support them. When I countered them saying that essentially you are asking us to support something based on whether they are "our crooks or not" and not on the basis of whether it is right or wrong, their reply essentially was that we know this better than you so just listen to our argument and support us.
Bottom line? Illegal immigration in any form is not acceptable.
English_August: Actually, it is a very thick line between legal and illegal immigration, as far as Latinos are concerned. There has been strong Latino/Hispanic immigration (legal) into the US for several decades now, if not a whole century, which is also possible. There are third and fourth generation people in the US of Latino/Hispanic ancestry. It's just that there was a serious influx of illegal immigrants in the US over the last ten to fifteen years, and the media makes it seem as if they are all illegal. That is not true.
I agree - illegal immigration in any and every form is unacceptable. I am familiar with SAALT, including their executive director, Deepa Iyer. While I admire the community outreach work that they do, I too differ with them over a blanket amnesty. BTW, it was Deepa who corrected my false impression recently. The numbers for illegal immigrants from India are astoundingly high - the estimate is between 300,000 and 400,000. That number compares with the number of people in the legal immigrant EB pipeline from India, probably.
At the end of the day, it, sadly, does come down to numbers. Even in 1986, in Reagan's time when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was passed, amnesty of some form was given to people who had either entered the country illegally or had over-stayed their visas. This time the number of illegal immigrants is much higher, and Congress can't ignore this problem anymore. At least the American people seem to have clearly told Congress to put aside petty partisan squabbling, and get the people's work done on Capitol Hill.
I am simply amazed by this dismal statistic - IV claims that there are about half a million people stuck in immigration backlogs/retrogression. Then why does IV have a membership that merely represents barely 1% of this pool? 6500 members isn't enough. Capitol Hill treats you differently if you say that you have 20,000 or 30,000 members...you get more attention.
more...
qualified_trash
05-17 12:32 PM
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.
Why are members on this forum so eager to ask others to refrain from this or refrain from that? Are we all not adults leading professionally successful lives. Can we all not have a discussion with varying points of view? I am asking someone - WAIT - begging someone from the core group to ask everyone to stop doing this? What use are our degrees and experience if we cannot listen to dissent? I would like to call this 'EDUCATED ILLITERACY' if I may.
The question posed by the other user was rhetorical in nature. I am not sure why he should understand and refrain. I think the others should either agree/disagree/no comment with him and refrain from asking him to keep quiet.
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.
Why are members on this forum so eager to ask others to refrain from this or refrain from that? Are we all not adults leading professionally successful lives. Can we all not have a discussion with varying points of view? I am asking someone - WAIT - begging someone from the core group to ask everyone to stop doing this? What use are our degrees and experience if we cannot listen to dissent? I would like to call this 'EDUCATED ILLITERACY' if I may.
The question posed by the other user was rhetorical in nature. I am not sure why he should understand and refrain. I think the others should either agree/disagree/no comment with him and refrain from asking him to keep quiet.
2010 True Blood Main Cast :
burnt
03-31 06:36 PM
Today I received a call from my lawyers office asking me whether my wife had taken the TB test as we skipped that test when we applied for I-485 in July 2007 as my wife was expecting at that time. My PD is Feb 2007
Lawyers office said they received a call from USCIS as they are getting the cases ready to be adjudicated. USCIS wanted to know whether my wife got her TB test done or not.
Did anyone else got such a call from USCIS? And Gurus, what do you all think this means?
Lawyers office said they received a call from USCIS as they are getting the cases ready to be adjudicated. USCIS wanted to know whether my wife got her TB test done or not.
Did anyone else got such a call from USCIS? And Gurus, what do you all think this means?
more...
rockstart
07-15 08:26 AM
The letter is trying to say either of two things from heart
1) Employer / DOL/ Lawyers cheated us by filing us under EB3 even though the job posting was well qualified for Eb2.
2) Employer / DOL/ Lawyers were Naive so ended up filing us under EB3 even though the job posting was well qualified for Eb2.
So now CIS can compensate us since we are waiting in line for so many years. In old times when the system was so inefficient and now you have cheated us by improving the system and people have sneaked past us? All this might be true but when you are presenting a legal case these things do not stand a chance of being accepted.
The right way will be to remove all references to Eb2 accept the fact that you consented to be in Eb3 so you should take all the pro's and con's associated with it. After that we can all write letters to CIS and all others under guidance of IV higlighting the endless waits and how visa recapture will help this mess. Dont make comparisons with Eb2 to justify your case because it isnt right and if you feel it is right then why just Eb2 why not EB1 after all they get GC in 1-2 years flat.
I would like to first applaud Pani for this effort. I strongly support his initative. I think his letter is original and from his heart. It is more authentic and human than what some on this forum are suggesting here. I think his gut feeling on this one is more important than the calculated steps IV has been taking so far.
These kind of authentic letters from members like pani would give IV a more strong foundation to focus their energy. I think all those who want to write letters to the President, Senator, Congressmen, USCIS, DOL, DOS, DOJ, etc should do so and also should write the letter on their own instead of copying one. The reasons, sentiments and purpose will add more flavour to the whole thing. I would go one step further to suggest that some should write the letter in Spanish, French, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, etc, etc, if they think that they can express themselves better in their own language.
Pani once again I would like to say that you are doing the right thing.
PS: When the ship is sinking everyone wants to escape but the one who is aggresive to save himself has more chance of living than the other who is waiting for someone to save him.
1) Employer / DOL/ Lawyers cheated us by filing us under EB3 even though the job posting was well qualified for Eb2.
2) Employer / DOL/ Lawyers were Naive so ended up filing us under EB3 even though the job posting was well qualified for Eb2.
So now CIS can compensate us since we are waiting in line for so many years. In old times when the system was so inefficient and now you have cheated us by improving the system and people have sneaked past us? All this might be true but when you are presenting a legal case these things do not stand a chance of being accepted.
The right way will be to remove all references to Eb2 accept the fact that you consented to be in Eb3 so you should take all the pro's and con's associated with it. After that we can all write letters to CIS and all others under guidance of IV higlighting the endless waits and how visa recapture will help this mess. Dont make comparisons with Eb2 to justify your case because it isnt right and if you feel it is right then why just Eb2 why not EB1 after all they get GC in 1-2 years flat.
I would like to first applaud Pani for this effort. I strongly support his initative. I think his letter is original and from his heart. It is more authentic and human than what some on this forum are suggesting here. I think his gut feeling on this one is more important than the calculated steps IV has been taking so far.
These kind of authentic letters from members like pani would give IV a more strong foundation to focus their energy. I think all those who want to write letters to the President, Senator, Congressmen, USCIS, DOL, DOS, DOJ, etc should do so and also should write the letter on their own instead of copying one. The reasons, sentiments and purpose will add more flavour to the whole thing. I would go one step further to suggest that some should write the letter in Spanish, French, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, etc, etc, if they think that they can express themselves better in their own language.
Pani once again I would like to say that you are doing the right thing.
PS: When the ship is sinking everyone wants to escape but the one who is aggresive to save himself has more chance of living than the other who is waiting for someone to save him.
hair True Blood The Complete Season
spicy_guy
07-29 04:20 PM
I am no supporter of either party. To be fair, the economy could have collapsed without him and most of us could have been back home by now.
Rightly said. He has had bigger problems to deal with than LEGAL immigration. Even if he wants to think about immigration, its going to be much / all about ILLigal immigrants.
Because thats what Americans want to fix first.
Rightly said. He has had bigger problems to deal with than LEGAL immigration. Even if he wants to think about immigration, its going to be much / all about ILLigal immigrants.
Because thats what Americans want to fix first.
more...
cherupally
07-17 01:27 PM
Thanks a bunch for the replies UN..
I have a quick Question in G-325A form about the previous addresses in last 5 yrs.. My credit history addresses do not match my paystub addresses.. So, which addresses do I need to put in this form.. Paystub addresses or Credit history addresses.. Will INS ask for proof of past addresses? I am confused.. Pls help..
Thanks a lot...
I have a quick Question in G-325A form about the previous addresses in last 5 yrs.. My credit history addresses do not match my paystub addresses.. So, which addresses do I need to put in this form.. Paystub addresses or Credit history addresses.. Will INS ask for proof of past addresses? I am confused.. Pls help..
Thanks a lot...
hot been watching season 3?
gcisadawg
12-22 06:23 PM
So tomorrow if I loose a job and kill someone considering responsible for it is justifiable? Where is the gray area?
Dude, if you havent heard about it, it is already happening.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/15/a-sad-day-in-silicon-valley/
One the serious note, you didn't get the crux of my post. Read my previous reply to another poster.
Dude, if you havent heard about it, it is already happening.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/15/a-sad-day-in-silicon-valley/
One the serious note, you didn't get the crux of my post. Read my previous reply to another poster.
more...
house Chance. Human
alien2006
07-14 03:03 PM
I wouldn't use the word slave so calously. We on H1s are not slaves, we have some restrictions but we are not slaves. I think you need to see some good documentary or better yet read books on slavery.
tattoo house True Blood Season 1,2
unitednations
08-02 06:35 PM
Welcome back and Thanks very much for your valuable suggestions.
I have an important question for you and would request your suggestion:
Here's my situation: I am working for my current employer from last 6 years. My I-485 has been filed last week through my employer's attorney. My EB3 I-140 approved and I am on 9th year of h1-B. My H1-B expires in January next year. I have 3 other dependants on H4.
Now my current employer is trying to either fire me off or reduce my work hours to about 8 hrs / week.
What would be my best option to take decision?
1. Should I :
a. Stay home untill the expiry of 6 months and invoke AC21 after that? or
b. transfer my H1-B to some other employer and start working on H1-B and just wait for 6 months to invoke AC21?
2. Can my current employer reduce my hours legally? Meaning if they have to alter my H1-B to 8 hrs per week what will happen to my H1-B? Can i still able to transfer my H1-B to new emploer to work for 40Hrs/week if I want to?
The problem is- if they can't reduce my hours legally, I may be fired. And, if I get fired, they will revoke my H1-B on the same day but won't revoke my I-140 untill 6 months.
What do you suggest to help both me and my employer?
Thanks a lot for your valuabale suggestion and helping me out.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
I have an important question for you and would request your suggestion:
Here's my situation: I am working for my current employer from last 6 years. My I-485 has been filed last week through my employer's attorney. My EB3 I-140 approved and I am on 9th year of h1-B. My H1-B expires in January next year. I have 3 other dependants on H4.
Now my current employer is trying to either fire me off or reduce my work hours to about 8 hrs / week.
What would be my best option to take decision?
1. Should I :
a. Stay home untill the expiry of 6 months and invoke AC21 after that? or
b. transfer my H1-B to some other employer and start working on H1-B and just wait for 6 months to invoke AC21?
2. Can my current employer reduce my hours legally? Meaning if they have to alter my H1-B to 8 hrs per week what will happen to my H1-B? Can i still able to transfer my H1-B to new emploer to work for 40Hrs/week if I want to?
The problem is- if they can't reduce my hours legally, I may be fired. And, if I get fired, they will revoke my H1-B on the same day but won't revoke my I-140 untill 6 months.
What do you suggest to help both me and my employer?
Thanks a lot for your valuabale suggestion and helping me out.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
more...
pictures Robin Hood Season 3 DVD Box
srkamath
07-13 05:59 PM
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initatives - call campaigns for House bils...
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
EB1 EB2 EB3 are "preference" categories established by a law. This letter seems to be demanding that the DOS ignore the "preference" - Sorry it won't work.
Elsewhere in this forum someone has another letter campaign directed at visa re-capture legislation. That might have some influence.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
EB1 EB2 EB3 are "preference" categories established by a law. This letter seems to be demanding that the DOS ignore the "preference" - Sorry it won't work.
Elsewhere in this forum someone has another letter campaign directed at visa re-capture legislation. That might have some influence.
dresses True Blood Season 3 – DVD
redcard
03-23 05:20 PM
Wow...that is a pretty harsh list. Is it possible for you to politely point out that you need to prove legal status from your last entry into the country on H1B and not go all the way back to 2000 giving contracts and all ?
I think you are right.. its from the last lawful admission into the country to check the status. I am not sure if they can dig into your past beyond the last entry to US unless you have name check or other issue.
Here is the document which clearly states for lawful status into US.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/245(k)_14Jul08.pdf
You should be good incase you meet the requirement,
I think you are right.. its from the last lawful admission into the country to check the status. I am not sure if they can dig into your past beyond the last entry to US unless you have name check or other issue.
Here is the document which clearly states for lawful status into US.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/245(k)_14Jul08.pdf
You should be good incase you meet the requirement,
more...
makeup true blood season 3 dvd
Refugee_New
01-06 03:02 PM
Israel is fully justified in responding to the rocket attacks from Gaza. How long can they show restraint by not responding to the unprovoked attacks. Do you think US will remain silent, if Canada were to lob rockets into US. Asbolutely not. Every country has the right to protect itself.
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
Another muslim hater who justify organized crime and killing and support the killing of innocent school kids and civilians.
Hiding behind civilians and schools and mosques???? Don't you hear the same lie again and again year over year? If Hamas is using school kids as thier shield, then how do you think Palestenian people have elected the same people who cause their kids death rule their country?
Don't you think?
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
Another muslim hater who justify organized crime and killing and support the killing of innocent school kids and civilians.
Hiding behind civilians and schools and mosques???? Don't you hear the same lie again and again year over year? If Hamas is using school kids as thier shield, then how do you think Palestenian people have elected the same people who cause their kids death rule their country?
Don't you think?
girlfriend true blood season 3 dvd cover.
chanduv23
03-24 11:28 AM
Its a problem when we dont speak out on our issues - nobody understands our pain and.
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Remember the GREED brought American economy down.
Totally agree - but also remember - it is everybody's greed. During the Y2K days, consulates were approving visas left and right, I there used to be a one page LCA with H1b and I remember those companies were under pressure to bring people in - had clerks doing immigration paperwork in tonnes and then getting approvals at rapid pace.
If immigration always be of same standard - with standard measures to weed out resume fakers and fraud - good people won't get affected.
If someone wants to go back in life and point at things in past - they must go back and see if they always did the right thing.
Thats why I do not fully agree with UN. I agree USCIS are going tough - but not all companies or all immigrants are fraud because they lobbied or because economy is down or because anti immigrants are influencing them
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Remember the GREED brought American economy down.
Totally agree - but also remember - it is everybody's greed. During the Y2K days, consulates were approving visas left and right, I there used to be a one page LCA with H1b and I remember those companies were under pressure to bring people in - had clerks doing immigration paperwork in tonnes and then getting approvals at rapid pace.
If immigration always be of same standard - with standard measures to weed out resume fakers and fraud - good people won't get affected.
If someone wants to go back in life and point at things in past - they must go back and see if they always did the right thing.
Thats why I do not fully agree with UN. I agree USCIS are going tough - but not all companies or all immigrants are fraud because they lobbied or because economy is down or because anti immigrants are influencing them
hairstyles 3 true blood season 3 dvd
apt29
08-05 03:24 PM
Those are not in IT are caught in between the IT folks!
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:44 PM
A man was sitting reading his papers when his wife hit him round the head with a frying pan.
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
sanju
04-07 11:44 AM
If H1b quota is increased last 2 years it could have done easily as quota was reached much before the start of year. Without union support same thing is going to happen this year as last year. IV members has to wait years to get gc. They will use H1b as shield to gc reform and no one will get anything. Possiblity is H1b and GC provisions can be passed without much visiblity when CIR is passed. Majority of US people does not want unlimited immigration in any section whether legal or illegal. Opinion polls show that. US people wanted moderate increase in immigration and that is reflected in congress but pro immigrants want unlimited number in legal and illegal. That is the problem
How do you find H1 quota to be "unlimited"? And how is this bill going to prevent "unlimited numbers" that did not exist in the first place? I thought S.2611 and HR1645 propose to increase H1 quota to 115K, from the existing 65K H1b/yr. Does this increase make H1 quota "unlimited". I am ignorant about it, could you please help me understand.
How do you find H1 quota to be "unlimited"? And how is this bill going to prevent "unlimited numbers" that did not exist in the first place? I thought S.2611 and HR1645 propose to increase H1 quota to 115K, from the existing 65K H1b/yr. Does this increase make H1 quota "unlimited". I am ignorant about it, could you please help me understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment