chanduv23
09-28 05:18 PM
I have met a British guy here in New York who was like that. He loved the money, and always smiled to me for the money. But he never even want to lift a finger for the money he has been paid to do. And he despised me and was ashamed of having to talk to me because he was surrounded by some Southerners who were equally racist.
In fact, he even scammed me for money. And he was a businessman and now a CEO of a corporation.
This is a regular practice. This happens to everyone in their daily life. People tend to be nice to u and smile when you are paying money, but after that they let you know that they hate you for what you are.
In fact, he even scammed me for money. And he was a businessman and now a CEO of a corporation.
This is a regular practice. This happens to everyone in their daily life. People tend to be nice to u and smile when you are paying money, but after that they let you know that they hate you for what you are.
wallpaper Resume Objective Sample Sales
ho_gaya_kaya_?
07-14 08:36 PM
Why does the attorney have to be very competent if its a simple AC 21 case? I know people have applied for AC21 on their own. Will an attorney do something different? He will also send the same set of dcouments that I will? Pleaes help me here. I am not sure whether I should spend thousands of dollars on an attorney for something I could have done myself.
At least consult couple of lawyers- consultation fees wont be that bad
And in your situation- you have crossed the line where things are normal and usual
You do need expert opinion.
Money matters are different for all
and everyone has a different attitude to such situations
But just think how much you spend on car insurance - just for peace of mind...
Good luck !!!
At least consult couple of lawyers- consultation fees wont be that bad
And in your situation- you have crossed the line where things are normal and usual
You do need expert opinion.
Money matters are different for all
and everyone has a different attitude to such situations
But just think how much you spend on car insurance - just for peace of mind...
Good luck !!!
ebizash
09-10 08:31 PM
Greg's post is from today at 3:00 PM. We all know that our bill was not even mentioned by then so I think Greg's post may be incorrect. May be he just meant the the committee is considering the bills today.
My 2c
My 2c
2011 sample resume for job
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
more...
nc14
10-19 11:03 AM
Sent mine on Saturday.
Keep this going folks we need to help ourselves.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
11.
Question: We have a number of date availability questions. They are:
a.
What is the demographic makeup of those in the current backlog? Can we get data on their nationality?
Response: No, demographic data is not currently available and would require a special Information Technology Service Request (ITSR) be drafted and submitted to the Office of Information Technology www.uscis.gov
(OIT). The administrative burden on USCIS to pursue an ITSR solution and add an additional workload on the O&M contractor cannot be justified given the level of effort involved.
Keep this going folks we need to help ourselves.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
11.
Question: We have a number of date availability questions. They are:
a.
What is the demographic makeup of those in the current backlog? Can we get data on their nationality?
Response: No, demographic data is not currently available and would require a special Information Technology Service Request (ITSR) be drafted and submitted to the Office of Information Technology www.uscis.gov
(OIT). The administrative burden on USCIS to pursue an ITSR solution and add an additional workload on the O&M contractor cannot be justified given the level of effort involved.
GCwaitforever
02-22 11:41 AM
EB-2 India went to unavailable because USCIS stamped 2003/2004 petitions left and right to consume VISA numbers. Then they realized there were bunch of 2001/2002 petitions gathering dust. After no VISA numbers left, they had no option but to move the priority date backwards to make very few petitions current.
I am betting that they will move the dates forward to 2003 in August or September and process few more EB-2 India petitions. For any forward movement to happen to India EB-2/EB-3, ROW EB-2/EB-3 must become current again. If not, we have to wait till October 2008 for new quota to become effective.
I am betting that they will move the dates forward to 2003 in August or September and process few more EB-2 India petitions. For any forward movement to happen to India EB-2/EB-3, ROW EB-2/EB-3 must become current again. If not, we have to wait till October 2008 for new quota to become effective.
more...
Michael chertoff
03-10 12:33 PM
coolman ship,
what about if my greencard sponsoring company is ready to support me in any RFE( want to give me valid job offer any time). and i keep using my EAD for different employers.
still I have to use AC21 or it is OK?
i dont want to use AC21.
Thanks
MC
what about if my greencard sponsoring company is ready to support me in any RFE( want to give me valid job offer any time). and i keep using my EAD for different employers.
still I have to use AC21 or it is OK?
i dont want to use AC21.
Thanks
MC
2010 resume objectives, resume
drirshad
07-04 09:35 PM
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
more...
varshadas
09-12 10:57 AM
Ajay, Shekhar, Sanjay where are you guys? I have not heard from you guys for a while. Is anyone of you going to the rally? If not, have you guys been spreading the message within your contacts?
hair 4 Sample Resumes
dressking
09-28 05:34 PM
Entitlement due to Master's degree from US, Consultants vs FTE, Desi company consultants vs American company consultants etc.
I am one who has got a Master's degree in the US. I want to mention that because that I am proud of that. Just like Immigration Voice is stressing the fact that it is for legal immigrants only, not the illegal ones.
Anyone who has something to be proud of would want to mention it. Americans like to say "proud to be an American" for the same reason.
Besides, having finished a graduate degree program in the US is a big contribution to the US either financially or academically or both. Some of us have spent up to six years or more in graduate school in the US. You would want to get a Green Card after six years working full time, wouldn't you? Not to mention, working over time for six years as the case of most PhD candidates.
But the US educated have a big problem to face after graduation. That is when it comes to work that requires work experience, they are not as competitive as those who went straight to work and have got more work experience. They are only good in coming up with new patents and building new business models. The current immigration system favor those that have more work experience. So that is why the US educated are in a disadvantaged position.
Considering the fact that the US educated have contributed a lot to the US financially and/or academically before going to work, and are still in a disadvantaged position, we do need some special treatments.
Also, if the US educated are allowed to set up their own businesses earlier, it would be good for everybody.
We are not trying to compete with those who are not US educated for Green Cards. We are just trying to get the Green Cards we should have gotten for the contribution we have made. Our Green Cards should not be in the same categories as yours and should not take up your quota.
Have I made it clear?
I am one who has got a Master's degree in the US. I want to mention that because that I am proud of that. Just like Immigration Voice is stressing the fact that it is for legal immigrants only, not the illegal ones.
Anyone who has something to be proud of would want to mention it. Americans like to say "proud to be an American" for the same reason.
Besides, having finished a graduate degree program in the US is a big contribution to the US either financially or academically or both. Some of us have spent up to six years or more in graduate school in the US. You would want to get a Green Card after six years working full time, wouldn't you? Not to mention, working over time for six years as the case of most PhD candidates.
But the US educated have a big problem to face after graduation. That is when it comes to work that requires work experience, they are not as competitive as those who went straight to work and have got more work experience. They are only good in coming up with new patents and building new business models. The current immigration system favor those that have more work experience. So that is why the US educated are in a disadvantaged position.
Considering the fact that the US educated have contributed a lot to the US financially and/or academically before going to work, and are still in a disadvantaged position, we do need some special treatments.
Also, if the US educated are allowed to set up their own businesses earlier, it would be good for everybody.
We are not trying to compete with those who are not US educated for Green Cards. We are just trying to get the Green Cards we should have gotten for the contribution we have made. Our Green Cards should not be in the same categories as yours and should not take up your quota.
Have I made it clear?
more...
CSPAvictim
07-09 06:53 PM
I have a question: If this is indeed an internal DOS regulation, which it most probably is, does it mean that DOS can make changes without sufficient notice to the applicants/public? Does the Administrative Procedures Act come into play in such a situation?
Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
hot resume samples objective.
Openarms
03-09 04:36 PM
1) Massive campaigns won't do the job in fact they will do more harm then results particularly in this environments (learn from Hispanic community protests before CIR)
2) Mr. Change alone don't have to do something about it? he can direct his DHS and CIS people to do their jobs.. just because economy of economy is bad that does not mean people stop eating food.
3) We and institutions like IV needs to come up with agenda to lift this country quota ban (at least to eliminate this huge backlog)
4) IV says they have agenda but nobody knows their laundry list agenda.
5) We need to work for lifting this country quota ... this is the only way that things can become REASONABLE.
2) Mr. Change alone don't have to do something about it? he can direct his DHS and CIS people to do their jobs.. just because economy of economy is bad that does not mean people stop eating food.
3) We and institutions like IV needs to come up with agenda to lift this country quota ban (at least to eliminate this huge backlog)
4) IV says they have agenda but nobody knows their laundry list agenda.
5) We need to work for lifting this country quota ... this is the only way that things can become REASONABLE.
more...
house A free federal sample resume
leoindiano
02-18 08:25 PM
I dont think it will be passed. They included so many things initially. After discussion they will drop the thing one after another.
There are two sections related to us.
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION
If this bill passed then it will create one grand huge backlog for all countries and for all category of immigration. WHY?? Because for Title V they will ask for proof and then again finger printing for FBI check and I dont know home many paper work. If they simply increase the GC #s it will work for us. We already have completed the paper work and standing in Q.
Agree,
this is such a waste if it passes. I am sure there will be another application like (I-420). Another Q you will have to stand in and wait...wait...wait...
There are two sections related to us.
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION
If this bill passed then it will create one grand huge backlog for all countries and for all category of immigration. WHY?? Because for Title V they will ask for proof and then again finger printing for FBI check and I dont know home many paper work. If they simply increase the GC #s it will work for us. We already have completed the paper work and standing in Q.
Agree,
this is such a waste if it passes. I am sure there will be another application like (I-420). Another Q you will have to stand in and wait...wait...wait...
tattoo This resume is an example of
rimzhim
04-04 03:29 PM
It is also the favorite trick of anti-green card reform groups like IEEE.
You are confused on this. IEEE is against increase of H1B visas. They have never said anything about GCs. If they have, show me where.
Just because the quota got over the first day it implies that the system is abused, right? Let me tell who is abused. People waiting for green card are abused. Not fixing green card delays and deliberately keeping the debate around H-1b is an abuse.
those who will feel abused are ones with advanced degrees from the US but did not get their H1B only to find someone from India has gotten an H1B. That person will feel abused because of the time (and maybe money) spent in getting the advanced degree.
You are confused on this. IEEE is against increase of H1B visas. They have never said anything about GCs. If they have, show me where.
Just because the quota got over the first day it implies that the system is abused, right? Let me tell who is abused. People waiting for green card are abused. Not fixing green card delays and deliberately keeping the debate around H-1b is an abuse.
those who will feel abused are ones with advanced degrees from the US but did not get their H1B only to find someone from India has gotten an H1B. That person will feel abused because of the time (and maybe money) spent in getting the advanced degree.
more...
pictures wallpaper resume objective
GCBy3000
01-18 03:06 PM
I dont understand where they will deport you if you do not have any immigration documents? By default to mexico?... :) This office does not know anything...
Well, this is NOT a cooked up story. This happened to me yesterday at Harlingen (HRL) Texas airport.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel�s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer�s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I�m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in �ORGANE�.
Well, this is NOT a cooked up story. This happened to me yesterday at Harlingen (HRL) Texas airport.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel�s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer�s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I�m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in �ORGANE�.
dresses resume objective examples.
BharatPremi
09-26 10:08 AM
It is not about politics, it is about ignorance of the people (including reporters). It is explainable, though - what do you know about... I don't know, laws around transporting hazardous materials, something you have never been exposed or subject to? Next to nothing. That's what an average American knows about immigration - their closest brush with that law was when their co-worker adopted a child from abroad. Of course, they do not know the difference between worker visas, and employment based immigrant visas (don't they even sound alike?).
Hermione,
How confident are you to call them "Ignorant".... It could be very planned and calculative agenda. Writer writes in CNN. Never ever be ignorant about their tactful agenda, capacity and wilful application of the polity.
I belive, IV MUST talk to CNN and force them to accept the "error" in that article publicly by publishing at earliest.
Hermione,
How confident are you to call them "Ignorant".... It could be very planned and calculative agenda. Writer writes in CNN. Never ever be ignorant about their tactful agenda, capacity and wilful application of the polity.
I belive, IV MUST talk to CNN and force them to accept the "error" in that article publicly by publishing at earliest.
more...
makeup resume objectives, resume
chmur
03-23 08:56 PM
After arriving in US , typically It takes about a year or two before you start ur GC process.(Initial job/city jumping )
So most of the applicants in 01-02 arrived during the halcyon days of 99-00.
with this analogy, I don't expect too many applicant in 03-04
So most of the applicants in 01-02 arrived during the halcyon days of 99-00.
with this analogy, I don't expect too many applicant in 03-04
girlfriend resume objective examples.
delax
07-13 11:39 AM
I am not saying my lawyer is any better, all these lawyers are nothing but blood suckers just like the employers. I'm just disgusted that people can stoop so low. The objective might be the same, but the intentions are far from it. I hope you understand that my friend and stop being a PR rep for murthy or any lawyer. :)
You have the option to leave the country if you think all employers and lawyers are blood suckers - I cannot comment on anybodys intention - I dont think you and me know the complete facts to pass a value judgement and that includes your comment about me being a PR for murthy or any lawyer. I enjoy a healthy debate on issues not on people and you seem to completely miss that from my postings.:)
You have the option to leave the country if you think all employers and lawyers are blood suckers - I cannot comment on anybodys intention - I dont think you and me know the complete facts to pass a value judgement and that includes your comment about me being a PR for murthy or any lawyer. I enjoy a healthy debate on issues not on people and you seem to completely miss that from my postings.:)
hairstyles basic resume examples. free
singhsa3
03-03 01:16 PM
I just sent a request to CNN to take a look at this thread. A formal letter may be sent soon. So please continue to vote and participate.
logiclife
12-26 03:46 PM
I see an increasing incidence of activities/offers/utilities with restrictions, citizen/green card status only, here are some examples, perhaps others can share experiences too:
1. I tried to travel to Mexico. if you do not have a GC, here is what you have to do (for many not all nationals, India is on the list):
appear in a consulate (350 miles for me) personally, with all family members present, the consulate will send a request for permission to proccess to Mexico City. then cool your heels at least 6 weeks. Once permission is obtained the entire family reappers in person to apply for the visa.
I chose not to travel.
2. Amex is advertising a glopal trip protection insurance, with the caveat that you may only apply if citizen or GC.
3. I've been a Citibank customer for a decade, and have considerable funds with them, one click of a button opens me a new e-account- except that the fine print says you have to be Citizen/GC to do it.
4. A travel package to Europe offers an incentive- 1 euro for 1 dollar at the hotel....you guessed it! only citizens and GC....
5. i heard someone complain about Discover earlier....they send preapproved offers then reject you if you tell them you are not Citizen/GC. I've had one for years, they happened to send me an approved offer without the question....the whole thing is tragicomic :-)
6. If your visa is expired as mine is (btw a feb date has never opened up anywhere in India to date...i'm sick and tired and frustrated....getting an appt is a major hassle) the you better choose your airline carefully, the French embassy demands personal appearance (350 miles) for the 10 min it takes to issue a visa- which then lets me walk from one gate to another at De Gaulle....
I'm not dying to be a permanent resident. I don't consider it my right. I have not taken anyone's job...I was recruited after a long search failed. Since I have joined our practice has grown many fold, my revenue itself has doubled and we have recruited more providers - Americans, incidentally.
But i would love to have a green card as long as i'm here, life would just be easier...
I dont think you need a transit visa for Charles De Gaulle airport anymore. They used to have that if you dont have a valid visa you were going to use for return trip. I think that's gone. It caused Air France to lose a lot of business and they probably got that removed by French Govt.
About AMEX, Discover, Citi issues, I guess the business is theirs to lose. There will always be competition to pick up that demand. If they are going to be picky, they are going to lose a half a million potential customers to someone else. They are not the only ones in creditcard, banking business.
1. I tried to travel to Mexico. if you do not have a GC, here is what you have to do (for many not all nationals, India is on the list):
appear in a consulate (350 miles for me) personally, with all family members present, the consulate will send a request for permission to proccess to Mexico City. then cool your heels at least 6 weeks. Once permission is obtained the entire family reappers in person to apply for the visa.
I chose not to travel.
2. Amex is advertising a glopal trip protection insurance, with the caveat that you may only apply if citizen or GC.
3. I've been a Citibank customer for a decade, and have considerable funds with them, one click of a button opens me a new e-account- except that the fine print says you have to be Citizen/GC to do it.
4. A travel package to Europe offers an incentive- 1 euro for 1 dollar at the hotel....you guessed it! only citizens and GC....
5. i heard someone complain about Discover earlier....they send preapproved offers then reject you if you tell them you are not Citizen/GC. I've had one for years, they happened to send me an approved offer without the question....the whole thing is tragicomic :-)
6. If your visa is expired as mine is (btw a feb date has never opened up anywhere in India to date...i'm sick and tired and frustrated....getting an appt is a major hassle) the you better choose your airline carefully, the French embassy demands personal appearance (350 miles) for the 10 min it takes to issue a visa- which then lets me walk from one gate to another at De Gaulle....
I'm not dying to be a permanent resident. I don't consider it my right. I have not taken anyone's job...I was recruited after a long search failed. Since I have joined our practice has grown many fold, my revenue itself has doubled and we have recruited more providers - Americans, incidentally.
But i would love to have a green card as long as i'm here, life would just be easier...
I dont think you need a transit visa for Charles De Gaulle airport anymore. They used to have that if you dont have a valid visa you were going to use for return trip. I think that's gone. It caused Air France to lose a lot of business and they probably got that removed by French Govt.
About AMEX, Discover, Citi issues, I guess the business is theirs to lose. There will always be competition to pick up that demand. If they are going to be picky, they are going to lose a half a million potential customers to someone else. They are not the only ones in creditcard, banking business.
vghc
07-03 11:23 AM
The point is to not 'distribute pain', it is to reduce the pain of a group.
Again, even though the benefits may go to one 'group', let me tell you that it is not a formal group and just as all ROW applicants are not one group, non-ROW applicants too are individuals and IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ONE INDIVIDUAL HOW MUCH OTHERS GOT BENEFITED.
So your point of saying that one group is benefited is irrelevant, because GCs aren't given to groups and only to individual applicants.
Your other point is absolutely right! Family should not be counted, and I'm in 100% agreement with that!
I am sure if the EB GC's goes to the principle applicant we all won't be in this bad of a shape. Its because of the addition of wife or kids, the number pool dries up faster. So if one wants to petition of elimination of country quote under the notion that EB community is needed because of our skills, take out the family members, then it makes sense, if not, don't. My 2 cents.
Again, even though the benefits may go to one 'group', let me tell you that it is not a formal group and just as all ROW applicants are not one group, non-ROW applicants too are individuals and IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ONE INDIVIDUAL HOW MUCH OTHERS GOT BENEFITED.
So your point of saying that one group is benefited is irrelevant, because GCs aren't given to groups and only to individual applicants.
Your other point is absolutely right! Family should not be counted, and I'm in 100% agreement with that!
I am sure if the EB GC's goes to the principle applicant we all won't be in this bad of a shape. Its because of the addition of wife or kids, the number pool dries up faster. So if one wants to petition of elimination of country quote under the notion that EB community is needed because of our skills, take out the family members, then it makes sense, if not, don't. My 2 cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment