snathan
01-16 01:36 PM
And who is asking your advice ? This is usa and I have a right to express my views.If you don't like it please ignore my post.Who has forced you to read my post ? Who is stopping to go back to India ?
You are not expressing your views...You are just spewing your venom and hatred. You are an ideal fit for loser's guild. I am not the one talking all BS about my employer and claiming gladly will back to India. Its YOU... if you dont remember what you are talking..I pity you. Did anyone force you to work for your employer? It was your choice and why you whine now.
I dont want to waste my time with your garbage. Have fun.
You are not expressing your views...You are just spewing your venom and hatred. You are an ideal fit for loser's guild. I am not the one talking all BS about my employer and claiming gladly will back to India. Its YOU... if you dont remember what you are talking..I pity you. Did anyone force you to work for your employer? It was your choice and why you whine now.
I dont want to waste my time with your garbage. Have fun.
wallpaper Brain Over Load Cute Anime
letstalklc
01-13 03:59 PM
Is this some thing needs to pass or in proposal or already effected since the date they published on the website?
I have not ready the doc.
I have not ready the doc.
crazyghoda
10-16 11:38 AM
A lot of EB2 folks are getting excited about getting the spillover from EB1 and EB2 ROW but has anyone contemplated that lots of EB3 ROWs will now start at looking at porting their dates to EB2 just as most people from EB3 India are?
Boy, I sure wish I was a lawyer! If this system remains as screwed up for another 20 years, I am surely sending my kid to law school :D
Boy, I sure wish I was a lawyer! If this system remains as screwed up for another 20 years, I am surely sending my kid to law school :D
2011 house really cute anime
PlainSpeak
01-14 04:27 PM
Plainspeak Show your PLAN and what you would do to get it done.
Everything else is BS
yes my friend waitinganwaiting. Now who taught you your manners. I ought to wash you mouth out with soap.
Now dont reply to this post if you have any sense of shame
Everything else is BS
yes my friend waitinganwaiting. Now who taught you your manners. I ought to wash you mouth out with soap.
Now dont reply to this post if you have any sense of shame
more...
reddymjm
09-23 03:48 PM
As per the other thread HR5882 is dead for now.. So concentrate on this now...
mundada
12-13 02:00 PM
I think you have made a great argument. The original intention of diversity quota was to prevent people from certain European countries from becoming a dominant race in the US in 1920s.
However, the Civil Rights Act that protects national origin came into effect in 1964.
I am not a lawyer but have been taking business law course. I therefore believe if national origin discrimination is not allowed in the employment then unusually high (5 years) green card delays for certain nationalities is promoting national origin discrimination by detering employers from hiring people born in certain countries.
I think this argument will fly. I am not sure family based restrictions could be lifted but national origin quota restriction on employment and national origin non-discrimination in employment are definitely contradicting each other.
FYI:
TITLE VII of the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (1964)
The protected classes: race, color, sex, religion & national origin. Employers with 15 or more employees. The most well known employment discrimination statute. Prohibits employment discrimination against the protected classes - race, color, sex, religion & national origin – in every aspect of employment, i.e. hiring, firing, promotion, training, working conditions, compensation, etc.
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
However, the Civil Rights Act that protects national origin came into effect in 1964.
I am not a lawyer but have been taking business law course. I therefore believe if national origin discrimination is not allowed in the employment then unusually high (5 years) green card delays for certain nationalities is promoting national origin discrimination by detering employers from hiring people born in certain countries.
I think this argument will fly. I am not sure family based restrictions could be lifted but national origin quota restriction on employment and national origin non-discrimination in employment are definitely contradicting each other.
FYI:
TITLE VII of the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (1964)
The protected classes: race, color, sex, religion & national origin. Employers with 15 or more employees. The most well known employment discrimination statute. Prohibits employment discrimination against the protected classes - race, color, sex, religion & national origin – in every aspect of employment, i.e. hiring, firing, promotion, training, working conditions, compensation, etc.
Hello All,
First and foremost, i must thank everyone from IV, who is working tirelessly to resolve the issues of retrogression in the GC process. As an affected individual I am very grateful that leaders of IV are ready to contribute so much effort for its goals. And even though I do not actively work for the IV agenda, I have contributed money to some IV action items.
I have a question/suggestion regarding the IV agenda. On IV's about page, pt number 2 asserts amongst other things,
The Discriminatory Per-Country Rationing of Green Cards That Exacerbates the Delays.
and further in the same point
We do not allow employers to discriminate hiring based on their nationality or country of origin. Therefore, the employment-based immigration, which is a derivative benefit of employment, should also be free from rationing based on nationality or country of birth.
I am curious to know what is the "legal" strength of these assertions is. Are they just "moral" statements or can the validity of these statements be tested in the legal framework of this country? In other words, my question is what is the constitutionality of the "Per Country Caps" in Employment / Family Based Immrigration procedures.
A lot of Laws and Statutes have been challenged in the Judicial System of USA. And many more are challenged every year. And if the laws are not constitutional then they can be repealed.
I am sure the leaders of IV must have thought about this argument however a quick search of the forums with 'constitutionality' as the search term did not return any results.
IV's efforts to utilize Lobbying to bring about change to alleviate/eliminate retrogression are certainly beneficial. However, if IV has not already considered and eliminated this legal argument, then it should explore whether there is any substance to this approach.
Hence this post. Below are some of the links that might be relevant.
wikipedia article on constitutionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality)
wikipedia category on US immigration case law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_immigration_and_naturalizat ion_case_law)
thanks and sincerely,
--soljabhai
more...
TheOmbudsman
08-30 11:22 AM
180 days.
Once you get ur Canadian PR, how long can we "not go" to canada. Will the PR expire if we do not land in canada??
Once you get ur Canadian PR, how long can we "not go" to canada. Will the PR expire if we do not land in canada??
2010 cute vampire girl cute anime
advad
07-15 01:01 AM
Hi there,
Here is my situation, any help to resolve this is appreciated.
- My self (primary) & my wife's(derivative) I-485's (PD June 2002) were filed in March 2007.
- My I-485 was approved in July 2007, my wife's was pending due to NC.
- My wife's employer filed PERM (PD June 2007) & then filed I-140 in March 2008.
- We recently contacted NSC regarding my wife's case status, we received a letter from them stating that, her I485 is waiting for I-140 to get approved.
They linked her new I-140 to her pending I-485 that was filed as derivative.Is this USCIS error?.How to correct this error and have them consider her I-485 application as a derivative application?.
Thanks for your help.
Here is my situation, any help to resolve this is appreciated.
- My self (primary) & my wife's(derivative) I-485's (PD June 2002) were filed in March 2007.
- My I-485 was approved in July 2007, my wife's was pending due to NC.
- My wife's employer filed PERM (PD June 2007) & then filed I-140 in March 2008.
- We recently contacted NSC regarding my wife's case status, we received a letter from them stating that, her I485 is waiting for I-140 to get approved.
They linked her new I-140 to her pending I-485 that was filed as derivative.Is this USCIS error?.How to correct this error and have them consider her I-485 application as a derivative application?.
Thanks for your help.
more...
ufo2002
05-11 02:04 PM
I agree with jnayar here... but everyone keep in mind that no system is perfect. But the US employment-based system has serious flaws... especially in today's more globalised-based economy. The requirement that someone stays in the "same job role / same employer" throughout the green card process probably made sense back in the old days when people usually tend to work their entire lives for one company. Today, that no longer makes sense. Employers everywhere almost have worker turnarounds of 2 years on average. That means given the average GC process is about 6 years, you could be looking at someone potentially changing employers 3 times!
Would anyone like to continue working on the same role/salary for 6 years, given that costs of living increase annually? Of course not.
I know that Australia has a "job-based" PR process, but it doesn't bind you to one specific employer... so at least you do have the freedom to decide what job you would like to take on.
The question of immigration to which country is better would probably yield one and the same answer based on the parameters that appear relevant to most people. However, the comparison of immigration processes and systems is an entirely different question - in theory, an employment based immigration system would be a lot better if it is based on correct assumptions. However, an employmet based system that ties an employee to the same job for the duration of the application process, and which requires that the same application processing be redone every time an employee changes jobs, while curtailing the maximum period of time the employee can work in the country is flawed. If the reasoning behind this is that the employee has to show that he/she is indespensible to that one job (with all the highly specific skills that come attached to the job description) which no US citizen/resident is qualified to do, should statistics not show that the majority of positions for which green cards were applied for and obtained have the same employee continuing in that role long after the said employee gets a green card? I would be very surprised if the numbers show that a significant number of employees stick around for any period longer than a year or so in their current, gc-approved roles (and by that, I mean the exact same role for which the GC was applied for - be it with the same company or elsewhere.). In a dynamic market for labor where "skillability" and "learnability" are much more important than current skills and learning, how important is the applicability of a person's current skills to a job that would anyway keep evolving or even changing altogether, during the 6 years of so that a person is employed in that capacity while waiting for the green card?
Just my $0.02.
Would anyone like to continue working on the same role/salary for 6 years, given that costs of living increase annually? Of course not.
I know that Australia has a "job-based" PR process, but it doesn't bind you to one specific employer... so at least you do have the freedom to decide what job you would like to take on.
The question of immigration to which country is better would probably yield one and the same answer based on the parameters that appear relevant to most people. However, the comparison of immigration processes and systems is an entirely different question - in theory, an employment based immigration system would be a lot better if it is based on correct assumptions. However, an employmet based system that ties an employee to the same job for the duration of the application process, and which requires that the same application processing be redone every time an employee changes jobs, while curtailing the maximum period of time the employee can work in the country is flawed. If the reasoning behind this is that the employee has to show that he/she is indespensible to that one job (with all the highly specific skills that come attached to the job description) which no US citizen/resident is qualified to do, should statistics not show that the majority of positions for which green cards were applied for and obtained have the same employee continuing in that role long after the said employee gets a green card? I would be very surprised if the numbers show that a significant number of employees stick around for any period longer than a year or so in their current, gc-approved roles (and by that, I mean the exact same role for which the GC was applied for - be it with the same company or elsewhere.). In a dynamic market for labor where "skillability" and "learnability" are much more important than current skills and learning, how important is the applicability of a person's current skills to a job that would anyway keep evolving or even changing altogether, during the 6 years of so that a person is employed in that capacity while waiting for the green card?
Just my $0.02.
hair Cute Anime. Courtney M.
snathan
01-17 10:18 AM
Even if it is ok to fight how much resource IV have it to fight multiple issues. Resource means not just money but also time, manpower and effort. Most of the issues can be resolved if EB reform is done as people need not renew H1b as most can get GC within 3 years. Law clearly tells that there should be valid job position for H1b at the time of filing. For consulting bodyshoppers will bring persons here and search for job. That is clearly violation of law.
But certainly it can be requested to USCIS to change if geneunie persons are impacted. If memorendum is violation of law then USCIS will face lawsuit and you can also do that
Can you just shut up and get lost....which law is saying that. give us the reference.
But certainly it can be requested to USCIS to change if geneunie persons are impacted. If memorendum is violation of law then USCIS will face lawsuit and you can also do that
Can you just shut up and get lost....which law is saying that. give us the reference.
more...
nojoke
12-11 12:32 PM
The focus is shifting from housing to economy and jobs. With 500,000+ applying jobless claims in a week is horrific. People will soon be thinking 'can we send 10+ million illegal immigrants and 1+ million legal immigrants back home to get jobs for local people'. I find it would be tough now to sell the idea that immigrants can save the economy by buying house. If some bright politician gets the idea 'why not send the immigrants home and create jobs' we all will be in trouble. :(
hot cute anime children.
krishmunn
06-15 01:17 PM
What is your solution to remove retrogession. Recapture bill may fetch you gc but not for all persons and after 1 or 2 years again backlog will increase to similar level. Permanent solution will be increase annual gc numbers and restrict H1b and L1 based on requirement. You are not going to get unlimited GC numbers any time but L1 numbers are unlimited(about 80k in 2007) and H1b numbers were 125K in 2007. In this situation if there is annual cap retrogession is going to become worse if atleast 50% of H1bs apply for GC every year.
This year numbers were much less due to recession,rfes and denials. But due to 195k H1bs issued upto 2003 Eb3 will not improve for another 2 years.
"H1B numbers were 125K in 2007"
Holly cow ! I always thought H1B cap is set to 65K (except for a few years in early 2000) :-)
The 125K which you mentioned is popularly used by anti-immigrant lobbys to push their argument. It includes all H1B transfers NOT only the fresh H1.
So, if X get his H1 in 2006 and change to a new company in 2007 , you will count X against 2006 as well as 2007 giving a false number. However, if X applies for a GC, it is not 2X applying for GC --- just X .
Recapture bill will help a lot in clearing the backlog. For future EB GC, if the dependents are not counted for immigrant visa, it will be much cleaner. Not all L1 and H1 apply for GC. Mostly the major Indian IT companies DO NOT sponsor GC (and as you know they are the major users of L1).
This year numbers were much less due to recession,rfes and denials. But due to 195k H1bs issued upto 2003 Eb3 will not improve for another 2 years.
"H1B numbers were 125K in 2007"
Holly cow ! I always thought H1B cap is set to 65K (except for a few years in early 2000) :-)
The 125K which you mentioned is popularly used by anti-immigrant lobbys to push their argument. It includes all H1B transfers NOT only the fresh H1.
So, if X get his H1 in 2006 and change to a new company in 2007 , you will count X against 2006 as well as 2007 giving a false number. However, if X applies for a GC, it is not 2X applying for GC --- just X .
Recapture bill will help a lot in clearing the backlog. For future EB GC, if the dependents are not counted for immigrant visa, it will be much cleaner. Not all L1 and H1 apply for GC. Mostly the major Indian IT companies DO NOT sponsor GC (and as you know they are the major users of L1).
more...
house This anime looks very very
chanduv23
02-04 09:10 AM
:(
http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_020207.html
Looks like the final version may be different and may have some loopholes to satisfy AILA and employer lobby.
http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_020207.html
Looks like the final version may be different and may have some loopholes to satisfy AILA and employer lobby.
tattoo Anime Girls {cute bg,
desibechara
10-09 04:01 PM
what if both husband & wife get jobs and come here on TN vsia, then how does TD visa apply because both are working? is that possible for both to work in US without one getting into this TD tangle?
db
db
more...
pictures XD..she#39;s cute-pretty..,but
gjoe
02-13 04:38 PM
Why should we give big bucks to big names? Instead we can pay 50% to 75% of that to a bunch of fresh law school grads from Harvard or some other top law school and see what they can do?
This way we would help young talent and also give them a platform to get their name in the front and at the same time we are not under cutting on their fees. Saving money but cutting unnecessary cost is the name of the game.
Any thoughs or counter arguments?
This way we would help young talent and also give them a platform to get their name in the front and at the same time we are not under cutting on their fees. Saving money but cutting unnecessary cost is the name of the game.
Any thoughs or counter arguments?
dresses RE: who is the cutest anime
snthampi
07-30 06:53 PM
Ohh the moral police (shiv sena etc) are out, chill out dude what is decent to you is not necessarily indecent to another man and and vice versa. You enjoy the same thing if Salman Khan does it in his movie, right? Don't be a Bore for real get my drift? Or were you the Amway gut I met?
Ignore that idiot man. There are some morons who think what they believe is right.
Ignore that idiot man. There are some morons who think what they believe is right.
more...
makeup I had gone emotionless
Michael chertoff
01-13 11:50 AM
Good Things about IV
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
Only one thing I like in this big post,, that is you are not HE you are SHE... we can be friends, you are so nice.
MC
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
Only one thing I like in this big post,, that is you are not HE you are SHE... we can be friends, you are so nice.
MC
girlfriend Cute anime Chibi girl by
jonty_11
02-12 02:11 PM
man..I do not see any hope for India...EB2 esp.
This sucks...we are in for along haul teh indians on this community...brace urselves.
This sucks...we are in for along haul teh indians on this community...brace urselves.
hairstyles Screenshots Cute Anime Girl
vdlrao
07-16 06:05 PM
EB2 is current now..."EB2 will be current within a year" gives an impression that EB2 which is not current will get current in one year...
I mean EB2 India will be current with in a year.
I mean EB2 India will be current with in a year.
walking_dude
02-13 02:43 PM
Are you sure you understood it fully?
I wrote " if you think ", meaning a lot of harping on is happening based on the assumption that removal of country limits will impact ROW badly. It's not the fact. Though it has been explained a number of times that its not the case, some members obstinately stick to their guns and regurgitate it again!
Taking some sentence written by me out-of-context does not prove anything.
Can I ask you a question? How much of IV goals you have supported till date? How many IV activities you have participated? How much you have contributed? I'm interested in knowing. If you haven't , whether you have incentive or not, it doesn't make even a teeny difference to the movement.
Is the cumulative effect of all three measures good for me (reduced wait time, or no change in wait time), or bad for me (increased wait time.)?
I read this, and I was referring to this:
So, does recapture and the increase in quota and the removal of the country limits, result in a greater wait time for me, as the comment above seems to imply. It would, if the recapture and the increase are not large enough to offset the effects of the removal of the per-country limit on ROW.
Coz if it does, then I don't have an incentive to support your goals, do I?
I wrote " if you think ", meaning a lot of harping on is happening based on the assumption that removal of country limits will impact ROW badly. It's not the fact. Though it has been explained a number of times that its not the case, some members obstinately stick to their guns and regurgitate it again!
Taking some sentence written by me out-of-context does not prove anything.
Can I ask you a question? How much of IV goals you have supported till date? How many IV activities you have participated? How much you have contributed? I'm interested in knowing. If you haven't , whether you have incentive or not, it doesn't make even a teeny difference to the movement.
Is the cumulative effect of all three measures good for me (reduced wait time, or no change in wait time), or bad for me (increased wait time.)?
I read this, and I was referring to this:
So, does recapture and the increase in quota and the removal of the country limits, result in a greater wait time for me, as the comment above seems to imply. It would, if the recapture and the increase are not large enough to offset the effects of the removal of the per-country limit on ROW.
Coz if it does, then I don't have an incentive to support your goals, do I?
sertasheep
07-03 05:28 PM
Can any IV member write to me with the following detials, if you have this info , please:
Of course, we need a reliable source to be cited.
1) Has it been reported anywhere in the media on how many applicants may have been approx. affected by the Visa Bulletin fiasco? All I have heard is "tens of thousands"
2) Any good estimate on how much expenditure may have been incurred..i saw somewhere that it was $300 mil?
email: sertasheep at immigrationvoice.org
Sertasheep
SuperModerator
Of course, we need a reliable source to be cited.
1) Has it been reported anywhere in the media on how many applicants may have been approx. affected by the Visa Bulletin fiasco? All I have heard is "tens of thousands"
2) Any good estimate on how much expenditure may have been incurred..i saw somewhere that it was $300 mil?
email: sertasheep at immigrationvoice.org
Sertasheep
SuperModerator
No comments:
Post a Comment