delhirocks
07-04 11:41 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. .
Good post Ramba
Good post Ramba
wallpaper architects#39; scale ruler it
Ramba
07-14 06:01 PM
Consult an attorney because if you applied for I-485 in July 2007 and quit employer in August, you might not be covered under AC21 since 6 months did not pass since adjucation request (I-485) was files with USCIS.
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
vine93
11-12 02:36 PM
Vin13
Thanks for nice draft. I can take initiatives at my state.
Thanks for nice draft. I can take initiatives at my state.
2011 2 bevel, 4 bevel, Joists Scale
sanjaymk
07-17 06:34 PM
Here is a rough draft of what we could use for the Webfax, please feel free to add/modify and change it to get to the final version. I feel it is a little too long so feel free to suggest your changes.
The Truth Shall Set You Free � Bible.
OR
This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in. ~Theodore Roosevelt
Respected <<Senator>>,
I would like to bring it to your attention some of the false propaganda and myths about highly-skilled H1B workers that are being fabricated and spread among the Senators. Most notable among them is a fax from NumbersUSA organization.
NumbersUSA has been faxing the below document to Senators and Congressman and urging them to vote against the SKIL bill act. I would like to bring it to your attention that this document is filled with blatantly untrue and misleading statements.
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
I would like to take the second point and prove the fallacy of this vicious propoganda.
A simple google search of the key words (alien taxation), leads me to this IRS document http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129431,00.html that unambiguously states right at the beginning that
..the controlling principle is that RESIDENT ALIENS are taxed in the same manner as U.S. citizens on their worldwide income
Further links in the same website lucidly and succinctly explains with clear examples the taxes for highly skilled H1B workers(The links to these documents are furnished in the Appendix.)
As a resident of your state I would like my representatives to use their precious votes based on sound facts and information from credible and trustworthy sources, because the last thing a representative would want is their constituents doubting their credibility and decision making.
I sincerely, kindly and respectfully urge you to kindly take this into account while making your decisions in the future.
Respectfully Yours,
<Name>
Appendix.
========
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html (Example 8 specifically)
================================================== =====
The Truth Shall Set You Free � Bible.
OR
This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in. ~Theodore Roosevelt
Respected <<Senator>>,
I would like to bring it to your attention some of the false propaganda and myths about highly-skilled H1B workers that are being fabricated and spread among the Senators. Most notable among them is a fax from NumbersUSA organization.
NumbersUSA has been faxing the below document to Senators and Congressman and urging them to vote against the SKIL bill act. I would like to bring it to your attention that this document is filled with blatantly untrue and misleading statements.
Dear [This fax will go to Your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative ]
I oppose any increase in the annual H-1B visa cap, including those in the SKIL Act. I am counting on you to oppose it.
Here are just a few reasons why I hope you will oppose the SKIL Act:
(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies.
(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
I would like to take the second point and prove the fallacy of this vicious propoganda.
A simple google search of the key words (alien taxation), leads me to this IRS document http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129431,00.html that unambiguously states right at the beginning that
..the controlling principle is that RESIDENT ALIENS are taxed in the same manner as U.S. citizens on their worldwide income
Further links in the same website lucidly and succinctly explains with clear examples the taxes for highly skilled H1B workers(The links to these documents are furnished in the Appendix.)
As a resident of your state I would like my representatives to use their precious votes based on sound facts and information from credible and trustworthy sources, because the last thing a representative would want is their constituents doubting their credibility and decision making.
I sincerely, kindly and respectfully urge you to kindly take this into account while making your decisions in the future.
Respectfully Yours,
<Name>
Appendix.
========
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=129428,00.html (Example 8 specifically)
================================================== =====
more...
vkrishn
07-16 11:32 AM
Don't know about his company...but the attorney definitely must be quite rich with all the legal charges :D
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
Its all about investing in the employee and has worked so far. ROI to the company is huge if the employee is taken care of (atleast on immigration issues). Employee can just concentrate on getting the job done and making sure the best products come out of the door on time to the end user making the company profitable.
My take: Money they spend on immigration issues (Law Firm, Renewals) should be peanuts to the profit the company makes.
Ramba
07-04 08:13 PM
Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
more...
willgetgc2005
02-16 11:40 AM
Retrohatao,
Yes. You are right. We got to keep hammering. It is a national security Issue to let people roam for years freely. Such a security fallacy, will prop up any Senators ears.
Ofcourse, we tend to miss such genuine opportunities to raise relevant Issues....
Any idea, how we can make this an agenda and get it to the IV volunteers and office bearers ?
Yes. You are right. We got to keep hammering. It is a national security Issue to let people roam for years freely. Such a security fallacy, will prop up any Senators ears.
Ofcourse, we tend to miss such genuine opportunities to raise relevant Issues....
Any idea, how we can make this an agenda and get it to the IV volunteers and office bearers ?
2010 ruler to scale.
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
more...
gk_2000
08-11 05:08 PM
Guys,
I have thought of one more idea..
We know very well that by current interpretation EB3 is permanently fixed to the back of the line. NO EB3 will get processed until the last EB2 who files in the year 2013 gets approved, (counting out the regular quota).
And why are we here? Many believe (or know) that it is because of the 245(i) amnesty signed by Clinton and Bush.
Isn't it ironic that the illegals that were put in the line are not being moved back as the line expands? Why only we legals? Maybe there is some scope to challenge the 245(i) visa number allocation and point out that legal immigrants are waiting in line then how can you admit illegals in front
Anyone having the facts and numbers of 245(i)?
I have thought of one more idea..
We know very well that by current interpretation EB3 is permanently fixed to the back of the line. NO EB3 will get processed until the last EB2 who files in the year 2013 gets approved, (counting out the regular quota).
And why are we here? Many believe (or know) that it is because of the 245(i) amnesty signed by Clinton and Bush.
Isn't it ironic that the illegals that were put in the line are not being moved back as the line expands? Why only we legals? Maybe there is some scope to challenge the 245(i) visa number allocation and point out that legal immigrants are waiting in line then how can you admit illegals in front
Anyone having the facts and numbers of 245(i)?
hair Ruler - Dual Scale, 12quot;
greencard_fever
07-20 11:14 PM
I'm having less and less faith in the claims made by members that USCIS is inefficient and clueless. ok, they have been and continue to be in many areas:):). However, they have a game plan this time. In retrospect, we know they had a game plan in June 07 also.
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
Hello Gurus,
I have red in many places that there is some cases which are "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" when they say this what exactly this means? my understand is that for USCIS every case which has all proper supporting documents then they will adjudicate that case no matter what if VISA number available, can some one help in understanding what is "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" :confused::confused:
There are several unknown variables (repeatedly and extensively discussed here)which make accurate prediction impossible for us. However, USCIS has the numbers of RIPE CASES. And they moved the dates based on the availability of remaining GC numbers for this fiscal AND the ripe cases.
They could have moved it to just Dec 2005, instead they moved it all the way to June 2006.
Best\ optimistic scenario- Most EB-2-I cases upto June 2006 will be adjudicated before Oct 1st.
Conservative scenario-Upto at least Dec 2005 PD all cases will be adjudicated , and a few CP cases into early 2006 will be adjudicated. With spillovers happening in each quarter, the PD should continue to move.
Hello Gurus,
I have red in many places that there is some cases which are "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" when they say this what exactly this means? my understand is that for USCIS every case which has all proper supporting documents then they will adjudicate that case no matter what if VISA number available, can some one help in understanding what is "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" :confused::confused:
more...
rb_248
02-20 03:08 PM
Thats positive news. Thanks.
hot Flightstore Short Ruler
vandanaverdia
09-10 04:16 PM
Done... sent to some students I know... and asked them to spread the word too...
Good job yabadaba...
Good job yabadaba...
more...
house make sure the scale ruler
desi3933
03-09 12:49 PM
by the way shusterman predicted ROW will retrogress in his blog found at shusterman.com there was also an IV post about this (abbout somethin like shusterman got a call from clinton or something)..........
so what happened to the quareterly spill over ???????????
spillover happens only when there are more EB based visas available than the number actually issued in the last quarter,
People who don't believe the slow movement should get reality check done.
so what happened to the quareterly spill over ???????????
spillover happens only when there are more EB based visas available than the number actually issued in the last quarter,
People who don't believe the slow movement should get reality check done.
tattoo Branding of Scale Ruler
justAnotherFile
07-24 01:28 PM
no offense meant..
.. but if "the law is the law" and there is no room for "interpretation" then lawyers will be out of business :)
I guess that is why congress also publishes the "intent of congress" with every legislative bill to guide interpretations, because there will be situations and cases which test the limits of law and they cannot visualize that while writing a law.
.. but if "the law is the law" and there is no room for "interpretation" then lawyers will be out of business :)
I guess that is why congress also publishes the "intent of congress" with every legislative bill to guide interpretations, because there will be situations and cases which test the limits of law and they cannot visualize that while writing a law.
more...
pictures 191310056 middot; Jakar Scale Ruler
chmur
09-11 12:41 AM
The problem with your analysis is not every one in the backlog has equal access to excess of 35-40K visas available each year. Most of the excess comes from EB4,5,1 and 2ROW and all goes to EB2 I/C. EB3 ROW gets ~30K every year (42K- 4*2.8K).
Even if we are to assume that post 2007 the demand for EB2 I/C and EB3 is low then also it is ~ 15K for EB2 I/C and ~ 10K for EB3 ROW. But the way INA law is framed EB3 I (most backlogged with ~ 60K) will only get 2800 visa till either of EB2 I/C or EB3 row becomes current. And by current I mean real current, not July 2007. Using these numbers it will still take 4-5 for both EB2 I/C and EB3 Row to become current.
This is assuming low demand in all EB categories continue.
It will be only after 2014-15 that EB3I will get ~ 50K SOFAD(35K SOFAD which EB2 I/C was getting plus about 15K from EB3 ROW category). So in 2015 EB3 I will see a jump of ~ 4 yrs (2003-2007). So EB3I folks with PD after 2007 will have a relative wait time of ~ 8 yrs but folks from 2003-4 are looking at a 12-13 year wait unless reform like Recapture/STEM Degree holders & Dependents excluded from cap is passed.
I understand how overflow gets distributed and Eb3-I is last in line. However , if net reduction is 35-40K each year starting 2010(i.e oct 2009 to oct 2010) and the backlog is 200 K at the beginning of 2010 (Inventory report) , we should work through all the backlog in 5 (40 *5) years.
That means in 2-3 years overflow should get to EB3 I because rest of the category will be current by then .
I agree people who applied in 2003 -2004 are looking at 10 year wait as against someone applying for EB3-I - today . Infact someone applying today will get GC in 5 years from now.
Even if we are to assume that post 2007 the demand for EB2 I/C and EB3 is low then also it is ~ 15K for EB2 I/C and ~ 10K for EB3 ROW. But the way INA law is framed EB3 I (most backlogged with ~ 60K) will only get 2800 visa till either of EB2 I/C or EB3 row becomes current. And by current I mean real current, not July 2007. Using these numbers it will still take 4-5 for both EB2 I/C and EB3 Row to become current.
This is assuming low demand in all EB categories continue.
It will be only after 2014-15 that EB3I will get ~ 50K SOFAD(35K SOFAD which EB2 I/C was getting plus about 15K from EB3 ROW category). So in 2015 EB3 I will see a jump of ~ 4 yrs (2003-2007). So EB3I folks with PD after 2007 will have a relative wait time of ~ 8 yrs but folks from 2003-4 are looking at a 12-13 year wait unless reform like Recapture/STEM Degree holders & Dependents excluded from cap is passed.
I understand how overflow gets distributed and Eb3-I is last in line. However , if net reduction is 35-40K each year starting 2010(i.e oct 2009 to oct 2010) and the backlog is 200 K at the beginning of 2010 (Inventory report) , we should work through all the backlog in 5 (40 *5) years.
That means in 2-3 years overflow should get to EB3 I because rest of the category will be current by then .
I agree people who applied in 2003 -2004 are looking at 10 year wait as against someone applying for EB3-I - today . Infact someone applying today will get GC in 5 years from now.
dresses Calculator Ruler (SP906)
imh1b
11-12 04:26 PM
If EB2 I becomes current , who benefits its EB3 I as the spillover will go EB3 India as India is the most retrogressed country. Our effort does not impact ROW EB2 as they are current any way. EB2 China will also benefit as spill over will help them. So supporting quarterly spillover is in EB3 India's. Make EB2 C and all over flow goes to EB3 I. Finally by opposing this it will not help EB3 I any way unless it makes you happy to see everybody suffer as long as you are suffering.
WRONG.
YOU are an EB2 India guy for sure and your PD is close.
If spillover happens, all visas will get used up by EB2 India only. EB3 India gets nothing. There are way too many Indians in the system. Even if something is left from EB2 India, EB3 ROW will get breadcrums.
EB3 India gets nothing. So stop giving wrong logic. I will oppose IV helping EB2 guys with close priority dates and not caring about everyone else.
WRONG.
YOU are an EB2 India guy for sure and your PD is close.
If spillover happens, all visas will get used up by EB2 India only. EB3 India gets nothing. There are way too many Indians in the system. Even if something is left from EB2 India, EB3 ROW will get breadcrums.
EB3 India gets nothing. So stop giving wrong logic. I will oppose IV helping EB2 guys with close priority dates and not caring about everyone else.
more...
makeup Flat Wood Ruler w/Two Double
RNGC
09-20 07:49 PM
Whilst in general a name change does sound like a good idea, we have spent a lot of time and money making sure that Immigration Voice as an organization is known.
It makes no sense to through that away
I am in no way trying to argue....I understand that "ImmigrationVoice" is now known very well ....by changing it to "LegalImmigrationVoice" we are not doing a whole lot of change, just adding a "Legal" in front.....we should maintain the same logo, so our identity will not change!
Just imagine you have no idea what IV is, you just come across the word "ImmigrationVoice" - how does it sound to you ? For me it sounds like we are just a pro-immigration group......No way it sounds like a Legal Immigration group....
Here in US large companies change names...so its not too late......adding a word "Legal", "Highly skilled" etc will go a long way for our future generations......
Just my $0.02
It makes no sense to through that away
I am in no way trying to argue....I understand that "ImmigrationVoice" is now known very well ....by changing it to "LegalImmigrationVoice" we are not doing a whole lot of change, just adding a "Legal" in front.....we should maintain the same logo, so our identity will not change!
Just imagine you have no idea what IV is, you just come across the word "ImmigrationVoice" - how does it sound to you ? For me it sounds like we are just a pro-immigration group......No way it sounds like a Legal Immigration group....
Here in US large companies change names...so its not too late......adding a word "Legal", "Highly skilled" etc will go a long way for our future generations......
Just my $0.02
girlfriend Scale Ruler , Metal Ruler
mariner5555
03-10 07:21 AM
dude, i was being funny. which part of the smiley didn't you get?
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
Kutra ..who the heck has the time to read yr senseless humor - it doesnt matter if you put a smiley face next to it. this is a serious issue and using senseless humor does not help ..I wont argue too much nor do I want to get into personal fight ..so I will stop. btw ..I dont have time to give you red dots nor do I care for them. what is sad is that if we cannot capitalize in some way the fact that many many of us are not buying houses (made by American workers BTW), cars, home improvement items etc etc ..then there is little chance that any other campaign will ever work
I have been resisting to get dragged into this, but I have to post! Not only are you incapable of understanding humor, but you are totally incompetent in understanding plain English.
I never wrote dirty linen is "writing the fact that we have to wait for years and years" or "having the poll" either. singhsa3 is trying his best to make a case that all of us who are "waiting for years and years" have the potential to buy houses, and therefore give us GCs. Dirty linen is when people like me and Pegasus503 offer our contrasting views (and get red-dotted by immature posters who cannot have a civil debate) AND the media thinks these IV folks are not even in agreement on this subject. This to me would be detrimental to singhsa3's efforts and thus I wrote let's not bicker/argue/wash dirty linen about whether we agree with singhsa3's idea or not.
As far as your advice "if you are not convinced then stay out of the way", take a cold shower, dude. I was the first to delete my post and asked others to do the same so this would benefit singhsa3's campaign. If your miniscule brain cannot fathom my posts, ignore them and help singhsa3 out instead. And yes, while you are growing up, do resist the urge to add those red-dots......that's not getting you your green card any faster.
Kutra ..who the heck has the time to read yr senseless humor - it doesnt matter if you put a smiley face next to it. this is a serious issue and using senseless humor does not help ..I wont argue too much nor do I want to get into personal fight ..so I will stop. btw ..I dont have time to give you red dots nor do I care for them. what is sad is that if we cannot capitalize in some way the fact that many many of us are not buying houses (made by American workers BTW), cars, home improvement items etc etc ..then there is little chance that any other campaign will ever work
hairstyles ruler to scale. architectural
ujjwal_p
02-14 02:55 AM
1 Post WW-1 Germany started to prosper economically, Jewish people have significantly contributed to its development especially by intellectual activities and in knowledge based industry
People of Asian (mostly Indians and Chinese) origin have contributed significantly to the knowledge industry of US and enhanced its intellectual capital
Can we stop this bs please. Comparing the fate of us, high-tech, high earning, upper middle class folks with that of millions of people who were killed in Europe, Rwanda, Cambodia is ridiculous and insulting to say the least. Agreed the system is unfair but please let's not get over our heads. People still have the choice to work anywhere(mostly), have the same rights as anyone else, can buy a house, basically do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law. Such superflous comparison is actually providing fantastic material to the anti-immigrants.
People of Asian (mostly Indians and Chinese) origin have contributed significantly to the knowledge industry of US and enhanced its intellectual capital
Can we stop this bs please. Comparing the fate of us, high-tech, high earning, upper middle class folks with that of millions of people who were killed in Europe, Rwanda, Cambodia is ridiculous and insulting to say the least. Agreed the system is unfair but please let's not get over our heads. People still have the choice to work anywhere(mostly), have the same rights as anyone else, can buy a house, basically do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law. Such superflous comparison is actually providing fantastic material to the anti-immigrants.
cookbook
11-27 09:22 AM
I am trying to self file I765, I want to paperfile since I don't want to go for photos and other stuff to the Uscis center. My lawyer has filed my earlier applications for employment authorization and parole. He has filled all my previous employment authorization dates on the I765 forms, however I cannot fill more than 2 dates on the I765 forms, do I convert the form into word and fill it and reconvert it back? I have to file next week, please help.
psaxena
11-19 11:09 AM
Are you the one who created the slogan, move ahead we are behind you... !! (and will always be behind without giving any support)
Why don't you file the lawsuit, why do you look up to someone to do what you want??
Just want get everything in the world without doing anything and that too FREE??
Step up and do something rather than just pushing everyone around.
There is a lot I can say about , but then the fine line of the difference between you and me will be no more. So I leave this conversation right here!! Hope this shakes up your conscious if you got one.
Did you file the lawsuit yet?
Someone please update on the lawsuit to enforce visa spill over
Why don't you file the lawsuit, why do you look up to someone to do what you want??
Just want get everything in the world without doing anything and that too FREE??
Step up and do something rather than just pushing everyone around.
There is a lot I can say about , but then the fine line of the difference between you and me will be no more. So I leave this conversation right here!! Hope this shakes up your conscious if you got one.
Did you file the lawsuit yet?
Someone please update on the lawsuit to enforce visa spill over
No comments:
Post a Comment