gsc999
08-15 12:41 PM
A comprehensive look at Lou Doub, his past, his present and his future ( ;-) please see quote below for future...)
"CNN president Jonathan Klein refused The Nation's requests for an interview, but he has told the New York Times that "Lou's show is not a harbinger of things to come at CNN."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/eviatar
"CNN president Jonathan Klein refused The Nation's requests for an interview, but he has told the New York Times that "Lou's show is not a harbinger of things to come at CNN."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/eviatar
wallpaper Best Sexy Bikini Bodies
santb1975
10-01 01:30 AM
I am
After the bail-out bill failed in the House, Obama immediately posted a response reassuring Americans and investors that the leaders will come up with another soon.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
After the bail-out bill failed in the House, Obama immediately posted a response reassuring Americans and investors that the leaders will come up with another soon.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
unitednations
07-10 01:42 PM
Hello United Nations..
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
No; you don't have to have a valid visa in your passport to file the 485. You are just supposed to be in non immigrant status (ie., f1, f2, h1, h4, etc.). Your I-94 card if expired; should not have expired more then six months prior to filing 485.
Auto revalidation is one of the neatest little escapes to gettting back into proper status. Essentially; when entering into usa; one needs a valid visa to enter. However; auto revalidation is when a person goes to Canada or Mexico; stays less then 30 days; doesn't try to visit another country; doesn't attempt to go for visa stamping; has a valid/unexpired I-94 card (this also means unexpired I-94 card on a notice of action) then you can re-enter usa without a valid and unexpired visa.
This concept is actually very difficult for people to believe that if their visa is expired but they have a valid i-94 card that they can go to canada and re-enter usa without a visa. since you are resetting your date of last entry by going out and coming back in then it helps greatly in using 245k since you have reset the date of your last entry into usa.
Without auto revalidation; if you wanted to go out and come back in and take advantage of 245k then you would have to go for visa stamping in order to be allowed back in. However; consulate can check back to your earliest entry into usa and ask for paystubs/w2's as far back as they want (sometiemes they will ask you for all the way back). If they don't like what they see then they may not approve the visa and you are stuck.
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
No; you don't have to have a valid visa in your passport to file the 485. You are just supposed to be in non immigrant status (ie., f1, f2, h1, h4, etc.). Your I-94 card if expired; should not have expired more then six months prior to filing 485.
Auto revalidation is one of the neatest little escapes to gettting back into proper status. Essentially; when entering into usa; one needs a valid visa to enter. However; auto revalidation is when a person goes to Canada or Mexico; stays less then 30 days; doesn't try to visit another country; doesn't attempt to go for visa stamping; has a valid/unexpired I-94 card (this also means unexpired I-94 card on a notice of action) then you can re-enter usa without a valid and unexpired visa.
This concept is actually very difficult for people to believe that if their visa is expired but they have a valid i-94 card that they can go to canada and re-enter usa without a visa. since you are resetting your date of last entry by going out and coming back in then it helps greatly in using 245k since you have reset the date of your last entry into usa.
Without auto revalidation; if you wanted to go out and come back in and take advantage of 245k then you would have to go for visa stamping in order to be allowed back in. However; consulate can check back to your earliest entry into usa and ask for paystubs/w2's as far back as they want (sometiemes they will ask you for all the way back). If they don't like what they see then they may not approve the visa and you are stuck.
2011 celebrity worst ikini bodies.
Better_Days
12-28 03:28 AM
Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
more...
%2B1.jpg "their buff ikini bodies.")
akred
04-07 12:22 PM
Will 115k enough by seeing 133k applications in one day? If 115k is reached we will ask unlimited. So there should be some system to see whether those115k H1b is used properly. Employers should not wait till october and they should get people when they require. If most of the H1b quota is used by bodyshoppers where will top US companies get?
One possible solution is to establish a separate quotas for companies perfoming R&D in the US. Something like this already exists in the tax code where companies establish eligibility for the R&D tax credit. A similar bar could be used to administer a R&D quota for H1B or GC. That should address concerns around the quota for top US companies.
One possible solution is to establish a separate quotas for companies perfoming R&D in the US. Something like this already exists in the tax code where companies establish eligibility for the R&D tax credit. A similar bar could be used to administer a R&D quota for H1B or GC. That should address concerns around the quota for top US companies.
dohko
04-09 01:46 PM
You're right excellent idea. 50% won't really affect Microsoft, Oracle, IBM
because they actually hire Americans.
Chill out pal, don't exaggerate how much people value academic degrees in real business world. Holding a Ms or PhD degree alone doesn't necessarily mean you're an asset to this country, nor to a particular employer. I have Ms degree from US institution and I don't think it matters much to my employer, everything is based on performance.
I agree that H1-B visa should be granted to people who fill a real business need, not those who are unfortunately treated as unlimited supply for body-shoppers making their fortune selling hours of H1-Bs. In this perspective, the idea of restricting companies with 50+% H1-Bs is brilliant. I wouldn't worry about management consulting firms like BCG or McKinsey, I bet they don't have half of their consultants under H1-b. :-)
because they actually hire Americans.
Chill out pal, don't exaggerate how much people value academic degrees in real business world. Holding a Ms or PhD degree alone doesn't necessarily mean you're an asset to this country, nor to a particular employer. I have Ms degree from US institution and I don't think it matters much to my employer, everything is based on performance.
I agree that H1-B visa should be granted to people who fill a real business need, not those who are unfortunately treated as unlimited supply for body-shoppers making their fortune selling hours of H1-Bs. In this perspective, the idea of restricting companies with 50+% H1-Bs is brilliant. I wouldn't worry about management consulting firms like BCG or McKinsey, I bet they don't have half of their consultants under H1-b. :-)
more...
satishku_2000
05-16 11:28 PM
The greater danger in life is not that we set our aims too high and fail, but we set them too low and still do � Michelangelo
Your aim is to not get fired. You want to buy an insurance policy to a secure job as if you are the only one entitled to have a job. This is a lower aim so you are bound to fail i.e. lose your job.
And how do you define �replacing some American workers�. There is a plant in Yuma, AZ manufacturing aircrafts for Kingfisher airlines in India. Doesn�t this mean that someone in India is being replaced by American worker???? Maybe we should stop all trade and we should have all needs of one country fill within its borders. Maybe we should say � from now on no one is going to do any business, collaboration, partnership and place orders to companies outside of the borders of the country where you live.
The best argument of restrictionist is either talk about no H-1B or green cards or talk about unlimited H-1Bs and green cards as if the extremes make the only reality in this world. Have you ever seen numbers like 290,000 or maybe 450,000. These are called whole numbers in mathematics and reside somewhere between ZERO and INFINITY/UNLIMITED.
Stop bickering in the name of American people. More than 99% Americans don�t even know what is H-1B visa or employment based green card. And one more thing, people�s opinion is the most foolish thing to look at when making a decision. Do you remember the % of people in favor of Iraq war in 2002? - More than 70%
Do you know how many people are in favor of pulling out of Iraq now, putting all the blame on the Administration? � around 70%
Do you know the % of �American people� saying that they screwed up by supporting the war in 2002? � 0%
No one would come out to say the nations and millions of people got screwed up due to "MY" twisted ideology in 2002. So let�s keep this argument of �American People� out of this debate.
In free market and capitalist economy, the measure of productivity doesn�t come from some lawmaker who is out of sink with reality or from the ideology of orgs like IEEE-USA or from posters like you. The measure of productivity comes from the employers and the companies. And if that is how it works best for the economy, society and the nation, then so be it. That is the reason why this society is more advanced. You may be afraid of such a situation but I am not scared of a scenario where someone who can perform a better job, either a citizen or on H-1B, takes my job. But that is ok, your way of thinking is all based on the premises that every one out there is after you and some how you have to eliminate this competition at the soonest.
You have used the argument of abuse, productivity, economy, outsourcing, country of origin and the color of Dick Morris� underwear - to argue against H-1B and to come extent green card number increase. Time and again I have said that this is not about H-1B. We, the people on this forum, want to discuss about GREEN CARD BACKLOGS. But you want to keep the discussion away from green card backlog and want the discussion be in the arena of H-1B. I must share with you that I have received atleast 7 different private messages telling me to �not waste my time with idiot like yourself�.
Like you ass, you keep your views and your opinions with yourself. Don�t poke your ass and your views into a place where they don�t belong. And please stop worrying about being displaced by someone else on H-1B. You have not even gotten green card and you have already turned into a restrictionist. Please wait for sometime and there will be enough time and opportunity for you to join the ranks of IEEE-USA. This makes me to think that there are 2 possibilities:
1.) You have very low self esteem and you think very lowly about yourself. Thus you are scared of the competition
2.) You are not capable enough or technically sound to compete with other around you. And just like IEEE-USA you are looking for ways to eliminate your future probable competition using words/phrases like �displacement of US workers�.
I tried to explain this guy Senthil that I already proved in form of permanent labor certificate and I 140 petition that I am not displacing any american worker and why I have to prove the same fact for every renewal and he comes with a logic that GC is for future job and H1b is for current job. But you know what my GC application was filed very well in the past ...:) , I mean more than 3 years ago ...
Somehow some people think they are better than every one else in the crowd and things dont go wrong for them because they have either a particular degree or work in a so called permanent Job .
These guys are in more alignment with view of ALIPAC and Numbers USA where people think some elses loss is my gain. Having said that reasonable people disagree these guys are totally unreasonable or they are totally out of touch with reality .
These guys love Mr Durbin so much who dont see any problem with illegal immigration at all ....I would call this height of hypocrosy.
Your aim is to not get fired. You want to buy an insurance policy to a secure job as if you are the only one entitled to have a job. This is a lower aim so you are bound to fail i.e. lose your job.
And how do you define �replacing some American workers�. There is a plant in Yuma, AZ manufacturing aircrafts for Kingfisher airlines in India. Doesn�t this mean that someone in India is being replaced by American worker???? Maybe we should stop all trade and we should have all needs of one country fill within its borders. Maybe we should say � from now on no one is going to do any business, collaboration, partnership and place orders to companies outside of the borders of the country where you live.
The best argument of restrictionist is either talk about no H-1B or green cards or talk about unlimited H-1Bs and green cards as if the extremes make the only reality in this world. Have you ever seen numbers like 290,000 or maybe 450,000. These are called whole numbers in mathematics and reside somewhere between ZERO and INFINITY/UNLIMITED.
Stop bickering in the name of American people. More than 99% Americans don�t even know what is H-1B visa or employment based green card. And one more thing, people�s opinion is the most foolish thing to look at when making a decision. Do you remember the % of people in favor of Iraq war in 2002? - More than 70%
Do you know how many people are in favor of pulling out of Iraq now, putting all the blame on the Administration? � around 70%
Do you know the % of �American people� saying that they screwed up by supporting the war in 2002? � 0%
No one would come out to say the nations and millions of people got screwed up due to "MY" twisted ideology in 2002. So let�s keep this argument of �American People� out of this debate.
In free market and capitalist economy, the measure of productivity doesn�t come from some lawmaker who is out of sink with reality or from the ideology of orgs like IEEE-USA or from posters like you. The measure of productivity comes from the employers and the companies. And if that is how it works best for the economy, society and the nation, then so be it. That is the reason why this society is more advanced. You may be afraid of such a situation but I am not scared of a scenario where someone who can perform a better job, either a citizen or on H-1B, takes my job. But that is ok, your way of thinking is all based on the premises that every one out there is after you and some how you have to eliminate this competition at the soonest.
You have used the argument of abuse, productivity, economy, outsourcing, country of origin and the color of Dick Morris� underwear - to argue against H-1B and to come extent green card number increase. Time and again I have said that this is not about H-1B. We, the people on this forum, want to discuss about GREEN CARD BACKLOGS. But you want to keep the discussion away from green card backlog and want the discussion be in the arena of H-1B. I must share with you that I have received atleast 7 different private messages telling me to �not waste my time with idiot like yourself�.
Like you ass, you keep your views and your opinions with yourself. Don�t poke your ass and your views into a place where they don�t belong. And please stop worrying about being displaced by someone else on H-1B. You have not even gotten green card and you have already turned into a restrictionist. Please wait for sometime and there will be enough time and opportunity for you to join the ranks of IEEE-USA. This makes me to think that there are 2 possibilities:
1.) You have very low self esteem and you think very lowly about yourself. Thus you are scared of the competition
2.) You are not capable enough or technically sound to compete with other around you. And just like IEEE-USA you are looking for ways to eliminate your future probable competition using words/phrases like �displacement of US workers�.
I tried to explain this guy Senthil that I already proved in form of permanent labor certificate and I 140 petition that I am not displacing any american worker and why I have to prove the same fact for every renewal and he comes with a logic that GC is for future job and H1b is for current job. But you know what my GC application was filed very well in the past ...:) , I mean more than 3 years ago ...
Somehow some people think they are better than every one else in the crowd and things dont go wrong for them because they have either a particular degree or work in a so called permanent Job .
These guys are in more alignment with view of ALIPAC and Numbers USA where people think some elses loss is my gain. Having said that reasonable people disagree these guys are totally unreasonable or they are totally out of touch with reality .
These guys love Mr Durbin so much who dont see any problem with illegal immigration at all ....I would call this height of hypocrosy.
2010 Top 10 Best Celebrity Bikini
Macaca
05-27 05:20 PM
U.S. Probes Infosys Over Visas (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576343070058872708.html) By MIRIAM JORDAN | Wall Street Journal
U.S. authorities are investigating whether an Indian software giant repeatedly violated American visa laws in order to place its own foreign employees in temporary jobs at some big corporate clients in the U.S.
The probe is examining whether Infosys Technologies Ltd. used inexpensive, easy-to-obtain visas meant to cover short-term business visits to the U.S.�instead of the appropriate, but harder to get, work visas�to bring in an unknown number of its employees for longer-term stays, according to people familiar with the matter.
These so-called B-1 business visas are intended for foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for purposes such as attending business conventions, consulting with business associates or installing machinery.
A State Department spokeswoman said the department is investigating Bangalore-based Infosys but declined further comment.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said ICE agents had visited Infosys's U.S. offices. However, she said that "as a matter of policy, the agency can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation."
In a statement Tuesday, Infosys said it "received a subpoena from a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The subpoena requires us to provide information to the grand jury regarding our sponsorships for, and uses of, B-1 business visas."
In a filing Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it "intends to comply with the subpoena and to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation."
Infosys is best known as an outsourcing company that provides India-based computing and other technology services to Western clients. But it also boasts thousands of U.S.-based employees who develop and install software for back-office accounting, logistics and supply-chain management for companies in the retail, finance and manufacturing industries. Infosys doesn't disclose the identity of its clients.
The visa investigation comes amid a national debate in the U.S. over whether foreign workers, particularly in the software sector, are displacing qualified Americans because they are cheaper to employ.
The investigation has spurred the government to say it intends to tighten visa regulations to close loopholes that critics say enable employers to abuse the immigration system.
The probe was sparked by a lawsuit filed in Alabama state court earlier this year by an Infosys employee named Jack "Jay" Palmer Jr., alleging that Infosys misused the B-1 visa program. The lawsuit, which was recently moved to federal court, alleges that Infosys should have used a different visa program, known as H-1B, under which high-skilled professionals, such as software developers, are allowed into the U.S. for longer-term work.
The U.S. issues just 65,000 H-1B visas a year, and demand sometimes exceeds supply. H-1Bs take several months to get and can cost upward of $3,000 per individual. The is no cap on B-1 visas, which can be obtained in a matter of days for $140 each.
In a court filing, Infosys, which acknowledges using B-1 visas, denied the lawsuit's allegations that it had abused them.
In an interview, Paul Gottsegen, Infosys's chief marketing officer, said he couldn't comment on a matter before the court, but he added: "We are currently in the midst of a detailed internal review to understand whether we need to change or tighten controls with the visa-application process. We are moving as quickly as possible on this important work."
After learning of Mr. Palmer's lawsuit, Sen. :DChuck Grassley (R, Iowa):D wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, his staff said, citing the suit and demanding an investigation of the B-1 visa program.
"I'm concerned about fraudulent actions that at least one foreign-based company has allegedly been taking in order get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections�.," said the April 14 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Visa fraud can carry penalties of 10 years in prison, in addition to fines. Companies found to violate the terms of a visa program such as H-1B can be temporarily suspended from participating in the program.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Infosys had revenue of $6 billion, about two-thirds of which came from North America. To service its U.S. clients, Infosys has become one of the top users of the H-1B visa program, employing about 10,000 H-1B holders in the U.S., according to its annual report. Other large users of the visas include Microsoft Corp. and Indian tech titans Wipro Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
H-1B visa holders can remain in the U.S. for as long as three years and are paid locally; their employers withhold federal and state income tax. B-1 visa holders are paid by the employer from their home country.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Palmer, a principal consultant at Infosys, alleges that Infosys was affected by the limited number of H-1Bs in 2009 and began using B-1s to circumvent H-1B requirements.
His attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, said: "We are cooperating with investigators from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security."
In March 2010, Mr. Palmer attended meetings in Bangalore, where Infosys officials discussed the need to find "ways to creatively get around the H-1B limitations and process to work the system to increase profits and the value of Infosys' stock," according to the lawsuit. Infosys denies the allegation.
Later, according to Mr. Palmer's complaint, he was asked to prepare letters in support of B-1 applications stating "the employee was coming to the United States for meetings, rather than to work at a job."
After he refused to write such letters, Mr. Palmer was instructed "to keep quiet" by a manager sent from India who confirmed the violations, according to the suit�a claim Infosys denies.
Mr. Palmer reported his concerns to Infosys' corporate counsel, Jeff Friedel, who told him to report them to the company's whistle-blower team, which he did in October 2010, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Friedel didn't reply to a request for comment.
Mr. Palmer's suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for, among other things, breach of terms of employment and emotional distress. Mr. Palmer remains employed by Infosys, but he is not currently doing any work, according to his attorney.
In recent years, Congress has introduced anti-fraud, training and other fees that have significantly raised the price of securing an H-1B visa.
"As Congress has made the H-1B visa category more expensive and more difficult to obtain, companies have searched for alternatives. The B-1 is one such alternative," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University.
"Because the B-1 is nebulous, some companies may be going beyond its intention," he added.
According to State Department regulations, a B-1 visa holder cannot engage in "local employment or labor for hire."
U.S. Moves from Rhetoric to Action on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/25/u-s-moves-from-rhetoric-to-action-on-visas/) By Megha Bahree and Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
What the Infosys Whistleblower Said on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/26/what-the-infosys-whistleblower-said-on-visas/) By Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
U.S. authorities are investigating whether an Indian software giant repeatedly violated American visa laws in order to place its own foreign employees in temporary jobs at some big corporate clients in the U.S.
The probe is examining whether Infosys Technologies Ltd. used inexpensive, easy-to-obtain visas meant to cover short-term business visits to the U.S.�instead of the appropriate, but harder to get, work visas�to bring in an unknown number of its employees for longer-term stays, according to people familiar with the matter.
These so-called B-1 business visas are intended for foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for purposes such as attending business conventions, consulting with business associates or installing machinery.
A State Department spokeswoman said the department is investigating Bangalore-based Infosys but declined further comment.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said ICE agents had visited Infosys's U.S. offices. However, she said that "as a matter of policy, the agency can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation."
In a statement Tuesday, Infosys said it "received a subpoena from a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The subpoena requires us to provide information to the grand jury regarding our sponsorships for, and uses of, B-1 business visas."
In a filing Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it "intends to comply with the subpoena and to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation."
Infosys is best known as an outsourcing company that provides India-based computing and other technology services to Western clients. But it also boasts thousands of U.S.-based employees who develop and install software for back-office accounting, logistics and supply-chain management for companies in the retail, finance and manufacturing industries. Infosys doesn't disclose the identity of its clients.
The visa investigation comes amid a national debate in the U.S. over whether foreign workers, particularly in the software sector, are displacing qualified Americans because they are cheaper to employ.
The investigation has spurred the government to say it intends to tighten visa regulations to close loopholes that critics say enable employers to abuse the immigration system.
The probe was sparked by a lawsuit filed in Alabama state court earlier this year by an Infosys employee named Jack "Jay" Palmer Jr., alleging that Infosys misused the B-1 visa program. The lawsuit, which was recently moved to federal court, alleges that Infosys should have used a different visa program, known as H-1B, under which high-skilled professionals, such as software developers, are allowed into the U.S. for longer-term work.
The U.S. issues just 65,000 H-1B visas a year, and demand sometimes exceeds supply. H-1Bs take several months to get and can cost upward of $3,000 per individual. The is no cap on B-1 visas, which can be obtained in a matter of days for $140 each.
In a court filing, Infosys, which acknowledges using B-1 visas, denied the lawsuit's allegations that it had abused them.
In an interview, Paul Gottsegen, Infosys's chief marketing officer, said he couldn't comment on a matter before the court, but he added: "We are currently in the midst of a detailed internal review to understand whether we need to change or tighten controls with the visa-application process. We are moving as quickly as possible on this important work."
After learning of Mr. Palmer's lawsuit, Sen. :DChuck Grassley (R, Iowa):D wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, his staff said, citing the suit and demanding an investigation of the B-1 visa program.
"I'm concerned about fraudulent actions that at least one foreign-based company has allegedly been taking in order get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections�.," said the April 14 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Visa fraud can carry penalties of 10 years in prison, in addition to fines. Companies found to violate the terms of a visa program such as H-1B can be temporarily suspended from participating in the program.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Infosys had revenue of $6 billion, about two-thirds of which came from North America. To service its U.S. clients, Infosys has become one of the top users of the H-1B visa program, employing about 10,000 H-1B holders in the U.S., according to its annual report. Other large users of the visas include Microsoft Corp. and Indian tech titans Wipro Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
H-1B visa holders can remain in the U.S. for as long as three years and are paid locally; their employers withhold federal and state income tax. B-1 visa holders are paid by the employer from their home country.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Palmer, a principal consultant at Infosys, alleges that Infosys was affected by the limited number of H-1Bs in 2009 and began using B-1s to circumvent H-1B requirements.
His attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, said: "We are cooperating with investigators from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security."
In March 2010, Mr. Palmer attended meetings in Bangalore, where Infosys officials discussed the need to find "ways to creatively get around the H-1B limitations and process to work the system to increase profits and the value of Infosys' stock," according to the lawsuit. Infosys denies the allegation.
Later, according to Mr. Palmer's complaint, he was asked to prepare letters in support of B-1 applications stating "the employee was coming to the United States for meetings, rather than to work at a job."
After he refused to write such letters, Mr. Palmer was instructed "to keep quiet" by a manager sent from India who confirmed the violations, according to the suit�a claim Infosys denies.
Mr. Palmer reported his concerns to Infosys' corporate counsel, Jeff Friedel, who told him to report them to the company's whistle-blower team, which he did in October 2010, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Friedel didn't reply to a request for comment.
Mr. Palmer's suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for, among other things, breach of terms of employment and emotional distress. Mr. Palmer remains employed by Infosys, but he is not currently doing any work, according to his attorney.
In recent years, Congress has introduced anti-fraud, training and other fees that have significantly raised the price of securing an H-1B visa.
"As Congress has made the H-1B visa category more expensive and more difficult to obtain, companies have searched for alternatives. The B-1 is one such alternative," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University.
"Because the B-1 is nebulous, some companies may be going beyond its intention," he added.
According to State Department regulations, a B-1 visa holder cannot engage in "local employment or labor for hire."
U.S. Moves from Rhetoric to Action on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/25/u-s-moves-from-rhetoric-to-action-on-visas/) By Megha Bahree and Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
What the Infosys Whistleblower Said on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/26/what-the-infosys-whistleblower-said-on-visas/) By Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
more...
qasleuth
03-23 05:23 PM
Got it. So, if OP does not provide contracts, sends in his reply and if his 485 app gets denied saying all the docs asked in the 'novel RFE' were not provided, then he can 'apply' under 245(k) ?
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
hair Best Celebrity Bikini Bodies
Macaca
05-02 05:38 PM
Don't kowtow to China now (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-kowtow-to-china-now/story-fn59niix-1226047967727) By Paul Dibb | The Australian
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
more...
nojoke
06-26 08:27 PM
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Home sizes have lesser impact on the median price now. It is unaffordability that is pushing the prices down. The median is getting back to what the income in the area can support. The builders can build mansions, but someone has to buy...One way the builders survive these days is by bulding smaller homes that people can buy..
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Home sizes have lesser impact on the median price now. It is unaffordability that is pushing the prices down. The median is getting back to what the income in the area can support. The builders can build mansions, but someone has to buy...One way the builders survive these days is by bulding smaller homes that people can buy..
hot their buff ikini bodies.
vrkgali
08-12 09:57 AM
Instructions: Just read the sentence straight through quickly without really thinking about it.
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
yse ,tahts hwo I awlays tyep in chat windwo s
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
yse ,tahts hwo I awlays tyep in chat windwo s
more...
house about their ikini bodies?
bhatt
06-05 09:41 PM
Does anyone know that the closing has to be before November 30th in order to get this 8K tax benefit?
My advice don't buy just for the 8k tax benefit. The reatlors main weapon is this 8k tax credit now. In NJ/NY it is less than the property tax u r paying for one year. In other places with less house prices it may be good.
My advice don't buy just for the 8k tax benefit. The reatlors main weapon is this 8k tax credit now. In NJ/NY it is less than the property tax u r paying for one year. In other places with less house prices it may be good.
tattoo Bikini Bodies A Superstar
BMS
07-10 07:01 PM
My situation goes something like this.
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
more...
pictures est bikini body of 2009?
Macaca
12-23 10:53 AM
Pelosi's first year as House speaker marked by little change on war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/23/MNOUU26C5.DTL&tsp=1) By Zachary Coile | SF Chronicle, Dec 23, 2007
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
dresses est ikini odies 2011
gcwait2007
06-26 11:31 PM
Pandey ji / Valid IV
o.k..I will explain it slowly ..I can understand that those who are homeowners will justify their home purchase. some maybe in denial and have their head in sand.
honestly, few months back, even I would have purchased a house . if I had, I would still admit -- that home is not necessarily good investment but a place to stay. even after I buy, I would still say that renting in an apartment has its advantages. here are 2 links in english.
Why rent? To get richer - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/WhyRentToGetRicher.aspx)
Why Your Mortgage Won't Make You Rich - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124352291846962809.html)
--------------
now you need to read this carefully else you won't understand what the authors are trying to say ..since it is bit unclear but it has good points (not trying to make fun here :)) ..do read since they are superb articles
but here is even simpler explanation and hopefully that will explain what I am trying to say ..if you still don't understand ..u will need to find someone else to explain.
first renting gives you flexibility ...so say, u get better job offer or lose job - you don't lose lot of money compared to house if you have to move.
for 250K house, you pay around 300 property tax, 60 HOA fees, 150 - 200 in maintenance (recurring like lawn plus once in long term like roof, painting etc) , 100 - 150 extra in utilities. you pay downpayment of 50 k ..if you were to invest that money in better investments (mutual funds, stocks, high CDs. bonds) ..you would make 250 - 300 per month. plus add fees when you have to sell the house, insurance, termite protection etc etc ..
plus in many cases, you end up buying a house further away than if you were to rent (since many want brand new house ) ..this means extra 250 - 300 in gas + vehicle degradation per month.
(ALSO SAY U WERE IN MICHIGAN OR IN CALIFORtNIA -- you could get away from the state after making money easily if you were renting. .home means you could end up stuck there).
I agree in apartment you get less space and hence I mentioned - u need to ask - do you really need extra space at this time in life - if yes, then home is better. (but renting a home is even better esp if prices are still falling in your area in this case).
btw - as of now rents are going down -- you just need to negotiate.
now you don't get the money back in rents..but neither do you get money paid in the expenses listed above.
(in other words - you don't get money back that you pay in rent yr apt BUT you get a place to stay ..this is not India where you can sleep on foot path - so you need a place. apartment property owner will make a small profit - but that is the system)
before you jump - house is good when it appreciates by atleast 1 -2 percent above inflation and I am not saying that you should never buy a house.
there are many other points and I will post it in IV WIKI ...and I hope this helps newcomers ...this is my last personal post ...and do watch the movie :) ..once again I did mention in plain english that it is worst case scenario (the movie "pacific heights")..but best case scenario is not good either if you are a landlord with property in US while you are in India (or vice versa).
hope that answers your question ..please note: the above is for normal cases ..but if you get a good deal or short sale or foreclosed home for 50K --- then yes, buying makes sense !!
Hello Hiralalji,
Excellent post. Salute to you!
Thank you once again
o.k..I will explain it slowly ..I can understand that those who are homeowners will justify their home purchase. some maybe in denial and have their head in sand.
honestly, few months back, even I would have purchased a house . if I had, I would still admit -- that home is not necessarily good investment but a place to stay. even after I buy, I would still say that renting in an apartment has its advantages. here are 2 links in english.
Why rent? To get richer - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/WhyRentToGetRicher.aspx)
Why Your Mortgage Won't Make You Rich - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124352291846962809.html)
--------------
now you need to read this carefully else you won't understand what the authors are trying to say ..since it is bit unclear but it has good points (not trying to make fun here :)) ..do read since they are superb articles
but here is even simpler explanation and hopefully that will explain what I am trying to say ..if you still don't understand ..u will need to find someone else to explain.
first renting gives you flexibility ...so say, u get better job offer or lose job - you don't lose lot of money compared to house if you have to move.
for 250K house, you pay around 300 property tax, 60 HOA fees, 150 - 200 in maintenance (recurring like lawn plus once in long term like roof, painting etc) , 100 - 150 extra in utilities. you pay downpayment of 50 k ..if you were to invest that money in better investments (mutual funds, stocks, high CDs. bonds) ..you would make 250 - 300 per month. plus add fees when you have to sell the house, insurance, termite protection etc etc ..
plus in many cases, you end up buying a house further away than if you were to rent (since many want brand new house ) ..this means extra 250 - 300 in gas + vehicle degradation per month.
(ALSO SAY U WERE IN MICHIGAN OR IN CALIFORtNIA -- you could get away from the state after making money easily if you were renting. .home means you could end up stuck there).
I agree in apartment you get less space and hence I mentioned - u need to ask - do you really need extra space at this time in life - if yes, then home is better. (but renting a home is even better esp if prices are still falling in your area in this case).
btw - as of now rents are going down -- you just need to negotiate.
now you don't get the money back in rents..but neither do you get money paid in the expenses listed above.
(in other words - you don't get money back that you pay in rent yr apt BUT you get a place to stay ..this is not India where you can sleep on foot path - so you need a place. apartment property owner will make a small profit - but that is the system)
before you jump - house is good when it appreciates by atleast 1 -2 percent above inflation and I am not saying that you should never buy a house.
there are many other points and I will post it in IV WIKI ...and I hope this helps newcomers ...this is my last personal post ...and do watch the movie :) ..once again I did mention in plain english that it is worst case scenario (the movie "pacific heights")..but best case scenario is not good either if you are a landlord with property in US while you are in India (or vice versa).
hope that answers your question ..please note: the above is for normal cases ..but if you get a good deal or short sale or foreclosed home for 50K --- then yes, buying makes sense !!
Hello Hiralalji,
Excellent post. Salute to you!
Thank you once again
more...
makeup ikini bodies bollywood.
rheoretro
11-12 04:59 AM
Lou Dobbs has a right to speak his mind. A lot of what he says is rhetoric but it is within his rights. I wouldn't want to associate IV with any Latino related immigration movement. Their objectives, issues and means are altogether different from ours.
We [should] care only about legal immigrants and not have even a whiff of supporting illegal immigration in any form and from any country. For a long time now, the word immigration has been expanded to mean Latino immigrants and only Wall Street Journal takes care to single out that immigration from countries like India is of a different hue (more knowledge based), than immigration from Mexico (more labor intensive).
Bottom line, aligning ourselves with the Latino agenda is bad policy and politics and a losing proposition.
FYI English_August, I'm sure you know this but there's a not so fine distinction between illegal immigration and Latino immigration. While the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants today are likely from Mexico, let me ask this question of you and other people on this forum. How many estimated (govt. estimates) illegal immigrants are in the US today from India? China? Philippines? Any ideas? The numbers will blow your mind. Guaranteed.
Like it or not, legal immigration reform could well come packaged with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) next year, which will primarily deal with illegal immigration.
As for Dobbs the right-wing nutjob, I am sure that people have noticed that he has stopped talking about immigration since election day. Why do people care about him? His misinformation campaign fell flat on its face anyway.
We [should] care only about legal immigrants and not have even a whiff of supporting illegal immigration in any form and from any country. For a long time now, the word immigration has been expanded to mean Latino immigrants and only Wall Street Journal takes care to single out that immigration from countries like India is of a different hue (more knowledge based), than immigration from Mexico (more labor intensive).
Bottom line, aligning ourselves with the Latino agenda is bad policy and politics and a losing proposition.
FYI English_August, I'm sure you know this but there's a not so fine distinction between illegal immigration and Latino immigration. While the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants today are likely from Mexico, let me ask this question of you and other people on this forum. How many estimated (govt. estimates) illegal immigrants are in the US today from India? China? Philippines? Any ideas? The numbers will blow your mind. Guaranteed.
Like it or not, legal immigration reform could well come packaged with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) next year, which will primarily deal with illegal immigration.
As for Dobbs the right-wing nutjob, I am sure that people have noticed that he has stopped talking about immigration since election day. Why do people care about him? His misinformation campaign fell flat on its face anyway.
girlfriend ikini bodies and style.
riva2005
04-08 01:11 PM
Guys you are unnecessarily raking your brain over this. This is a blatant anti immigrant anti eb green card bill disguised as h1 reform. The people who wrote this bill are the same people who were carrying placards saying "legal immigrants welcome, no to illegal immigration". Now do you really believe them? Even Jeff sessions was one of them and he is the number one opposer of legal eb immigrants.
Pitha,
You're going in the right direction. But a slight correction here.
These guys...Sessions, Grassley etc dont really support or oppose anything on principle. Its not like they have made up their mind about what they think is right or wrong for the country. They are responding to their campaign contributors. Plain and simple.
I can cite 2 such examples:
Firstly, Senator Dianne Feinstein. She was against Amnesty. Thru and thru. Now, the spinach and lettuce growers lobbied her. Suddenly, she supported and sponsored Agjobs bill. And what does Agjobs bill have in it? Mini-Amnesty, but only limited to agricultural workers. And this change of heart didnt even take 6 months. Elected officials tend to be very flexible when you are suffering from weight of heavy and burdensome cash in your pockets that needs to be relieved.
Another example, our own dear Senator Chuck Grassley from the State of Iowa. He is strong opponent of Amnesty. Believes in the rule of law. Always opposed to legalizing the illegals ... except when he doesnt. When does he not oppose legalization? When is co-sponsors Agjobs bill with Sen. Dianne Feinstein? You see, Iowa isnt exactly the Silicon Priarie if Bay Area is the silicon valley so he dunt give damn about them damn H1B scum. But Iowa does grow quite a bit of corn. And suddenly the corn has become a cash-rich crop due to Ethanol. So the farmers of Iowa had a heavy burden of the extra cash in their pockets. Senator Chuck Grassley relieved that extra weight of cash from corn growers and chose to co-sponsor the Agjobs bill that gives Amnesty to agricultural workers.
This is the data from the Federal Election commission that tracks money in politics and www.opensecrets.org where there is a more user-friendly way to find out the same data of who gives money to whom in politics and lobbying.
Senator Dianne Feinstein : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00007364&cycle=2006&expand=A07
TOTAL Agribusiness $97,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $47,000
American Cotton Shippers Assn $1,000
Blue Diamond Growers $3,000
Calcot Ltd $1,500
California Avocado Proponent $1,000
California Citrus Mutual $3,000
California Cotton Growers Assn $500
California Grape & Tree Fruit League $1,500
California Rice Industry Assn Fund $1,000
Farmers' Rice Cooperative $8,000
Florida Crystals $1,000
Louisiana Rice PAC $1,000
National Assn of Wheat Growers $1,000
National Cotton Council $1,000
National Potato Council $1,000
Nisei Farmers League $2,000
Producers Rice Mill Inc $1,000
Raisin Bargaining Assn $3,500
Riceland Foods $1,000
Southern Minn Beet Sugar Co-op $4,000
Sun-Maid Growers of California $2,000
Sunkist Growers $1,000
USA Rice Federation $2,000
Western Growers Assn $1,000
Western Pistachio Assn $4,000
Total Agricultural Services/Products $17,000
American Assn of Nurserymen $2,000
American Veterinary Medical Assn $2,000
California Westside Farmers Inc $1,000
Farm Credit Council $6,000
Friant Water PAC $2,000
National Council of Farmer Co-ops $1,000
Nestle Purina PetCare $1,000
Society of American Florists $2,000
Senator Chuck Grassley : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00001758&cycle=2006&expand=P
Total Agribusiness $34,500
Crop Production & Basic Processing $1,000
Dairy $5,000
Poultry & Eggs $1,000
Livestock $1,000
Agricultural Services/Products $14,500
Food Processing & Sales $8,000
Forestry & Forest Products $4,000
Pitha,
You're going in the right direction. But a slight correction here.
These guys...Sessions, Grassley etc dont really support or oppose anything on principle. Its not like they have made up their mind about what they think is right or wrong for the country. They are responding to their campaign contributors. Plain and simple.
I can cite 2 such examples:
Firstly, Senator Dianne Feinstein. She was against Amnesty. Thru and thru. Now, the spinach and lettuce growers lobbied her. Suddenly, she supported and sponsored Agjobs bill. And what does Agjobs bill have in it? Mini-Amnesty, but only limited to agricultural workers. And this change of heart didnt even take 6 months. Elected officials tend to be very flexible when you are suffering from weight of heavy and burdensome cash in your pockets that needs to be relieved.
Another example, our own dear Senator Chuck Grassley from the State of Iowa. He is strong opponent of Amnesty. Believes in the rule of law. Always opposed to legalizing the illegals ... except when he doesnt. When does he not oppose legalization? When is co-sponsors Agjobs bill with Sen. Dianne Feinstein? You see, Iowa isnt exactly the Silicon Priarie if Bay Area is the silicon valley so he dunt give damn about them damn H1B scum. But Iowa does grow quite a bit of corn. And suddenly the corn has become a cash-rich crop due to Ethanol. So the farmers of Iowa had a heavy burden of the extra cash in their pockets. Senator Chuck Grassley relieved that extra weight of cash from corn growers and chose to co-sponsor the Agjobs bill that gives Amnesty to agricultural workers.
This is the data from the Federal Election commission that tracks money in politics and www.opensecrets.org where there is a more user-friendly way to find out the same data of who gives money to whom in politics and lobbying.
Senator Dianne Feinstein : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00007364&cycle=2006&expand=A07
TOTAL Agribusiness $97,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $47,000
American Cotton Shippers Assn $1,000
Blue Diamond Growers $3,000
Calcot Ltd $1,500
California Avocado Proponent $1,000
California Citrus Mutual $3,000
California Cotton Growers Assn $500
California Grape & Tree Fruit League $1,500
California Rice Industry Assn Fund $1,000
Farmers' Rice Cooperative $8,000
Florida Crystals $1,000
Louisiana Rice PAC $1,000
National Assn of Wheat Growers $1,000
National Cotton Council $1,000
National Potato Council $1,000
Nisei Farmers League $2,000
Producers Rice Mill Inc $1,000
Raisin Bargaining Assn $3,500
Riceland Foods $1,000
Southern Minn Beet Sugar Co-op $4,000
Sun-Maid Growers of California $2,000
Sunkist Growers $1,000
USA Rice Federation $2,000
Western Growers Assn $1,000
Western Pistachio Assn $4,000
Total Agricultural Services/Products $17,000
American Assn of Nurserymen $2,000
American Veterinary Medical Assn $2,000
California Westside Farmers Inc $1,000
Farm Credit Council $6,000
Friant Water PAC $2,000
National Council of Farmer Co-ops $1,000
Nestle Purina PetCare $1,000
Society of American Florists $2,000
Senator Chuck Grassley : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00001758&cycle=2006&expand=P
Total Agribusiness $34,500
Crop Production & Basic Processing $1,000
Dairy $5,000
Poultry & Eggs $1,000
Livestock $1,000
Agricultural Services/Products $14,500
Food Processing & Sales $8,000
Forestry & Forest Products $4,000
hairstyles Hottest Bikini Bodies
yrspassby
08-06 03:14 PM
According to CDC, there is an epidemic of people who are walking and texting getting run over by cars, you know who runs'em over people who are driving and texting
Today, we had an earthquake 5.4 at LA. NBC was thrilled, because that was their highest rating so far :)
It happens only in Hollywood, a secretary took a shield under the desk of her boss for earthquake. By the time, the earthquake was over, she had a starring role in his next movie..;)
Yesterday, John McCain removed a small mole from his temple, to which Pres. Bush responded "Temple?,Huh.. I didnt know he was Jewish"
Today, we had an earthquake 5.4 at LA. NBC was thrilled, because that was their highest rating so far :)
It happens only in Hollywood, a secretary took a shield under the desk of her boss for earthquake. By the time, the earthquake was over, she had a starring role in his next movie..;)
Yesterday, John McCain removed a small mole from his temple, to which Pres. Bush responded "Temple?,Huh.. I didnt know he was Jewish"
msp1976
04-08 09:00 AM
Would you???
of course not....
The provision defeats the purpose of whole whistle blower clause...
of course not....
The provision defeats the purpose of whole whistle blower clause...
unitednations
08-02 11:57 AM
I am on H1 since 1999 with same employer except for a long interval of 16 months. I filed my labor in April 2001 (assuming 245(i) will cover me). I was not on payroll during Aug 03 to Dec 04. So my W2 for 2003 is 33% less than LCA and no W2 for 2004. I last entered US in Sept. 03
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
No comments:
Post a Comment