nogc_noproblem
08-26 07:34 PM
You've heard of the Air Force's ultra-high-security, super-secret base in Nevada...
..., known simply as "Area 51?"
Well, late one afternoon, the Air Force folks out at Area 51 were surprised to see a Cessna landing at their "secret" base. They immediately impounded the aircraft and hauled the pilot into an interrogation room.
The pilot's story was that he took off from Vegas, got lost, and spotted the Base just as he was about to run out of fuel. The Air Force started a full FBI background check on the pilot and held him overnight during the investigation.
By the next day, they were finally convinced that the pilot really was lost and wasn't a spy. They gassed up his airplane, gave him a terrifying "you-did-not-see-a-base" briefing, complete with threats of spending the rest of his life in prison, told him Vegas was that-a-way on such-and-such a heading, and sent him on his way.
The next day, to the total disbelief of the Air Force, the same Cessna showed up again. Once again, they surrounded the plane... only this time there were two people in the plane.
The same pilot jumped out and said, "Do anything you want to me, but my wife is in the plane and you have to tell her where I was last night!"
..., known simply as "Area 51?"
Well, late one afternoon, the Air Force folks out at Area 51 were surprised to see a Cessna landing at their "secret" base. They immediately impounded the aircraft and hauled the pilot into an interrogation room.
The pilot's story was that he took off from Vegas, got lost, and spotted the Base just as he was about to run out of fuel. The Air Force started a full FBI background check on the pilot and held him overnight during the investigation.
By the next day, they were finally convinced that the pilot really was lost and wasn't a spy. They gassed up his airplane, gave him a terrifying "you-did-not-see-a-base" briefing, complete with threats of spending the rest of his life in prison, told him Vegas was that-a-way on such-and-such a heading, and sent him on his way.
The next day, to the total disbelief of the Air Force, the same Cessna showed up again. Once again, they surrounded the plane... only this time there were two people in the plane.
The same pilot jumped out and said, "Do anything you want to me, but my wife is in the plane and you have to tell her where I was last night!"
wallpaper (Watch eva pigford the walk),
vroapp
04-12 03:05 PM
agree.
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
2011 eva pigford short hairstyle
nojoke
01-01 12:23 PM
Do you think Indian strikes on Pakistan, or a war between India and Pakistan, is going to weaken these guys, or strengthen them?
What would be dumb now?
Suppose there are theives from Bihar that come and rob you in West Bengal.
You can either send your West Bengal police into Bihar, and turn it into a rivalry between two police departments. And a rivalry between two provinces.
Or you have the two police departments work together to reduce crime rate in the future.
You are delusional. Your example is no way related to what is happening. I don't know if I should explain the difference. 'You can wake up a sleeping man, but you cannot wake up a man pretending sleeping'. I have a feeling that you are simply trolling here.
The attack on pakistan terrorist camps is not to defeat terrorist, but to send a message to pakistan government to get serious. Either take action on these terrorist or we will do it. (It is more like humilating pakistan that we can do this and world is on our side and you better do something about this problem). We ask Azad Masood now because, if we get one guy out of pakistan, all other terrorists would realize that they cannot have a safe haven in pakistan. At least they won't be preaching openly in the public to go and bomb India.
So stop trolling:D
What would be dumb now?
Suppose there are theives from Bihar that come and rob you in West Bengal.
You can either send your West Bengal police into Bihar, and turn it into a rivalry between two police departments. And a rivalry between two provinces.
Or you have the two police departments work together to reduce crime rate in the future.
You are delusional. Your example is no way related to what is happening. I don't know if I should explain the difference. 'You can wake up a sleeping man, but you cannot wake up a man pretending sleeping'. I have a feeling that you are simply trolling here.
The attack on pakistan terrorist camps is not to defeat terrorist, but to send a message to pakistan government to get serious. Either take action on these terrorist or we will do it. (It is more like humilating pakistan that we can do this and world is on our side and you better do something about this problem). We ask Azad Masood now because, if we get one guy out of pakistan, all other terrorists would realize that they cannot have a safe haven in pakistan. At least they won't be preaching openly in the public to go and bomb India.
So stop trolling:D
more...
nixstor
11-12 08:31 PM
Regardless of the power shift in Congress, the cheap foreign labor lobby is coming on strong, pushing for legislation that would dramatically increase the number of foreign workers allowed into this country under existing guest worker programs.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Microsoft's Bill Gates this week fired the first shot in the coming fight for more cheap foreign labor. Gates warning of a shortage of high-tech workers that his company needs to be competitive.
His solution? Bringing in more foreign workers.
Critics say he's got it wrong.
STEVE CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: If we have a shortage, then the solution is to let the labor market be tight and more Americans will be attracted to those jobs as wages rise. If American business really feels that we're not teaching enough math and science in school, they need to pressure the political institutions to do a better job of teaching our kids.
TUCKER: Congress has a different solution. It's known as the Skill Act of 2006. It would nearly double the current cap on H1B visas and allow for a 20 percent increase every year after the previous year's quota was met, virtually guaranteeing an endless supply of lower-paid workers from overseas.
A study by Georgetown University found that the total potential number of new tech visas created by the Senate bill would by 1.88 million over the next decade. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics only projects a need for 1.25 million workers in computing and engineering fields. That's more visas than jobs.
Worker advocates say Congress is ready to sole a problem that doesn't exist.
KIM BERRY, PROGRAMMERS GUILD: We don't see any evidence of a shortage. A shortage under the laws of supply and demand would be an increase in wages, it would be body shops or headhunters stealing employees from other companies.
TUCKER: And that's not happening.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: No. In fact, wages are stagnant and declining. A study published by "BusinessWeek," in fact, found that the starting wages for computer scientists and engineers fell 12 percent or worse, Lou, from 2001 to 2005. It doesn't sound like a tight labor market to me.
DOBBS: No, it's just going in the opposite direction.
You know, at some point these people have got to be a little embarrassed by their shoddy economics and their lack of, let's say, integrity and intellectual honesty in what they are doing here. And perhaps at some point find a conscious in corporate America about what they are doing to working men and women in this country. You would think it would happen -- we hope sooner rather than later.
Thank you, Bill Tucker.
Wass up between these dudes? Lou and Kim? Are they buddies or more? :) .. damn.. He gets him on to his show so often as if Kim B is a prominent person. Why the hell doesnt he let America hear the other side of the story?? I mean not in this article.. in general.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Microsoft's Bill Gates this week fired the first shot in the coming fight for more cheap foreign labor. Gates warning of a shortage of high-tech workers that his company needs to be competitive.
His solution? Bringing in more foreign workers.
Critics say he's got it wrong.
STEVE CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: If we have a shortage, then the solution is to let the labor market be tight and more Americans will be attracted to those jobs as wages rise. If American business really feels that we're not teaching enough math and science in school, they need to pressure the political institutions to do a better job of teaching our kids.
TUCKER: Congress has a different solution. It's known as the Skill Act of 2006. It would nearly double the current cap on H1B visas and allow for a 20 percent increase every year after the previous year's quota was met, virtually guaranteeing an endless supply of lower-paid workers from overseas.
A study by Georgetown University found that the total potential number of new tech visas created by the Senate bill would by 1.88 million over the next decade. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics only projects a need for 1.25 million workers in computing and engineering fields. That's more visas than jobs.
Worker advocates say Congress is ready to sole a problem that doesn't exist.
KIM BERRY, PROGRAMMERS GUILD: We don't see any evidence of a shortage. A shortage under the laws of supply and demand would be an increase in wages, it would be body shops or headhunters stealing employees from other companies.
TUCKER: And that's not happening.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: No. In fact, wages are stagnant and declining. A study published by "BusinessWeek," in fact, found that the starting wages for computer scientists and engineers fell 12 percent or worse, Lou, from 2001 to 2005. It doesn't sound like a tight labor market to me.
DOBBS: No, it's just going in the opposite direction.
You know, at some point these people have got to be a little embarrassed by their shoddy economics and their lack of, let's say, integrity and intellectual honesty in what they are doing here. And perhaps at some point find a conscious in corporate America about what they are doing to working men and women in this country. You would think it would happen -- we hope sooner rather than later.
Thank you, Bill Tucker.
Wass up between these dudes? Lou and Kim? Are they buddies or more? :) .. damn.. He gets him on to his show so often as if Kim B is a prominent person. Why the hell doesnt he let America hear the other side of the story?? I mean not in this article.. in general.
Winner
03-25 11:01 AM
Thanks for contributing to IV with meaningful discussions. Would you all consider making a monetary contribution to IV?
more...
unseenguy
06-12 12:50 AM
I am in SF Bay area.
I would say WAIT and prices will become affordable here as well.
People who bought these 700K+ houses were not necessarily richer than you and me.
ARMs with low or zero down payments did the trick.
Save for the down payment and wait. You will get a good house at affordable price in 1-2 years.
California is going to be bankrupt soon. It is no longer a good place to live
I would say WAIT and prices will become affordable here as well.
People who bought these 700K+ houses were not necessarily richer than you and me.
ARMs with low or zero down payments did the trick.
Save for the down payment and wait. You will get a good house at affordable price in 1-2 years.
California is going to be bankrupt soon. It is no longer a good place to live
2010 eva pigford pictures
Macaca
12-27 08:33 PM
The Speaker's Grand Illusion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/26/AR2007122601484.html) Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats Need to Get Real About What They've Accomplished By David S. Broder | Washington Post, Dec 27, 2007
After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.
In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.
In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."
While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."
That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.
There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.
One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.
An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.
But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.
The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.
That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.
After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.
In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.
In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."
While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."
That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.
There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.
One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.
An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.
But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.
The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.
That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.
more...
amsgc
08-08 11:44 PM
.
hair eva pigford does
hpandey
06-25 04:13 PM
If you have only been reading all the doomsday articles on the net about another nosedive in the realestate market, then I must suggest you to step out and smell the coffee. Other than in a few areas like Detroit and Miami, the home prices are close to stable and are not heading to fall another 10%. When people write articles they want to sensationalize thier reports. What's happening in Detriot will not be happening everywhere in the nation. Real estate markets are very local and cannot be generalized. So anyone that is thinking that there is going to be another HUGE drop in home prices are mistaken.
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
I agree with you . Most of the people in this thread against home ownership are thinking that house prices are going to keep on falling and interest rates are going to be this low forever based on front page news articles.
I think its time for people to realize that the housing bubble burst in 2007 and we are already two years into it . The people who brought houses in the period of 2003 - 2007 suffered since they bought when the bubble was peaking but in the last two years the price correction has happened and in most good areas the prices are not falling anymore.
I am not asking anyone to buy or rent .. its a personal decision but if you believe that one year down the line you will get a more cheaper house and the interest rates would still be at 5 % you should think twice .
House is not an investment but a side effect of home ownership is that you will end up with a property but if you continue to rent you are sure to end up with nothing .
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
I agree with you . Most of the people in this thread against home ownership are thinking that house prices are going to keep on falling and interest rates are going to be this low forever based on front page news articles.
I think its time for people to realize that the housing bubble burst in 2007 and we are already two years into it . The people who brought houses in the period of 2003 - 2007 suffered since they bought when the bubble was peaking but in the last two years the price correction has happened and in most good areas the prices are not falling anymore.
I am not asking anyone to buy or rent .. its a personal decision but if you believe that one year down the line you will get a more cheaper house and the interest rates would still be at 5 % you should think twice .
House is not an investment but a side effect of home ownership is that you will end up with a property but if you continue to rent you are sure to end up with nothing .
more...
dontcareanymore
08-05 12:45 PM
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
W T F is unfair in that ? Why can't some one convert if they are indeed qualified as EB2 ?
How about a thorough investigation in to your case to compare what you do with what host of other EB3s do?
How about to see how long you have been with your employer and how long you intend to stay ?
How about investigate all other GC apps from your employer and compare your job duties to to others
I know you are a looser and just convinced your sweatshop owner to file an EB2 case for you. So don't preach.
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
W T F is unfair in that ? Why can't some one convert if they are indeed qualified as EB2 ?
How about a thorough investigation in to your case to compare what you do with what host of other EB3s do?
How about to see how long you have been with your employer and how long you intend to stay ?
How about investigate all other GC apps from your employer and compare your job duties to to others
I know you are a looser and just convinced your sweatshop owner to file an EB2 case for you. So don't preach.
hot Short Hairstyle
unitednations
07-17 12:08 PM
UN..
from your experience...
I would like to file for my GC filed thru my ex-employer in 2003, i140 also is approved and hoping the dates might be current in October.
I know it is safest route to join the ex-employer before filing 485,but I am not sure if he has a project around that time for me. The HR is always ready to give the required employment letter to hire me as a full time employee once I get my permanent residence card.
Now, my question is it safe to take this route, cos once we get the EAD and advance parole we will start using them with the spouse starting to work(so no more H4 status etc)..or any hitches as to during the interview will we have a hard time as to why I was not employed during 485 stage etc..
All the cases I see is people r filing 485 working with the current employer and plan to change jobs after 6 months..but my case is different..
Have you seen/known anyone getting GC without working for the sponsoring employer during time time of filing 485..?
I am of the opinion that one should stay on h-1b as long as possible. As you can see a lot of people have started to go through their status issues. If one starts using EAD and employer revokes 140 then you will be in big problems.
Yes; I do know people who got greencard based on future base employment. Before Jan., 2005 it was an automatic interview if a person wasn't working with the petitioning employer when they filed the 485. However; now it doesn't cause an automatic interview.
When USCIS asks for tax returns/w2's in their RFE; they are checking whether you maintained status and also whether it is reasonable that you will be taking the job. That is; if you are currently employed with company a and your w2 is $120,000 but you are getting greencard through company b and the offered wage is $80,000 then uscis will question your intention.
from your experience...
I would like to file for my GC filed thru my ex-employer in 2003, i140 also is approved and hoping the dates might be current in October.
I know it is safest route to join the ex-employer before filing 485,but I am not sure if he has a project around that time for me. The HR is always ready to give the required employment letter to hire me as a full time employee once I get my permanent residence card.
Now, my question is it safe to take this route, cos once we get the EAD and advance parole we will start using them with the spouse starting to work(so no more H4 status etc)..or any hitches as to during the interview will we have a hard time as to why I was not employed during 485 stage etc..
All the cases I see is people r filing 485 working with the current employer and plan to change jobs after 6 months..but my case is different..
Have you seen/known anyone getting GC without working for the sponsoring employer during time time of filing 485..?
I am of the opinion that one should stay on h-1b as long as possible. As you can see a lot of people have started to go through their status issues. If one starts using EAD and employer revokes 140 then you will be in big problems.
Yes; I do know people who got greencard based on future base employment. Before Jan., 2005 it was an automatic interview if a person wasn't working with the petitioning employer when they filed the 485. However; now it doesn't cause an automatic interview.
When USCIS asks for tax returns/w2's in their RFE; they are checking whether you maintained status and also whether it is reasonable that you will be taking the job. That is; if you are currently employed with company a and your w2 is $120,000 but you are getting greencard through company b and the offered wage is $80,000 then uscis will question your intention.
more...
house eva pigford fansite
Macaca
05-01 06:10 PM
Integrating immigrants (http://tribune.com.pk/story/160476/integrating-immigrants/) By Urvashi Butalia | The Express Tribune
A few days ago, quite by chance, I happened to find myself at lunch with a member of the British political establishment. For a while, the conversation remained desultory and ranged over the usual subjects � India, economic growth, food, Indian business in Britain and so on. And then, suddenly, things began to heat up. We found ourselves talking about immigrant communities in the West. What began as a general discussion on whether and how immigrant communities �integrate� into the culture of the adopted country, turned specifically to discussing Indians and Pakistanis in Britain.
Why was it, our host asked, that there was such a strong attachment to the home culture and, in many cases, such a resistance to integrating. In many places, he pointed out, immigrants even refused to learn the language of their adoptive country, in this case English, and this then meant that they could not move into the mainstream economic sphere, and they thus remained economically backward. He pointed to many stories he had heard, especially of Pakistanis, who could go through 16 years of schooling in Britain without learning English, or even showing a desire to learn it. And what mystified him even more was that these were not first generation immigrants who still carried the memory of the homeland with them, these were children born and raised in Britain, and for them there was no such memory to hold on to.
The politician�s concern was quite genuine. How do you deal with your political constituencies if one set of them always elects to stay �outside�? But I�m not sure the reasons he gave � he pinpointed only the reluctance to learn the language � are adequate to explain what is increasingly becoming a problem in diasporic communities. For too long, migration, � or rather voluntary migration, when people go out in search of jobs or better lives � has been looked upon somewhat askance, especially if it is people from the erstwhile Third World countries moving to the so-called developed world. It�s almost as if, in seeking to improve their lives by going elsewhere, these people are doing something not quite right.
This attitude towards immigrants holds both for the home country and the adoptive one � in one you are seen as a deserter and in the other as, at best, an unwelcome guest. So the onus of making yourself feel at home, of acquiring a new identity, of �integrating�, is put upon the immigrant. Whatever services the state provides seem almost to be given reluctantly, and are often accompanied by a discourse � not a state discourse but an independent one, which makes it that much more difficult to address � of resentment, anger, prejudice and, sometimes, just sheer envy. None of this encourages immigrants to try and integrate, rather it pushes them in the opposite direction.
And then, if there�s already a community in existence, as there is virtually everywhere in England and America, you tend to remain within it, not seeking to enter a world that you feel is hostile to you. And you have to be driven to the wall to protest because protest means mobilisation, it means numbers, it means making yourself vulnerable, it means tackling the strength of an increasingly coercive state. Small wonder then, that most immigrant communities duck their heads and carry on doing their own thing.
It isn�t only their relationship with the adoptive country that is problematic, but, especially for first generation immigrants, it�s very important to keep the connection with home, and to ensure that subsequent generations keep it too. This, as has often been seen, results in a somewhat static idea of what things are like at �home� and has also often led to a more dangerous phenomenon; the tacit support and the very real funding provided by diasporic communities to right-wing movements at home � there�s plenty of evidence of this and I don�t need to go into it here.
But let me come back to our politician and his concerns. Why should South Asian immigrant communities in Britain be reluctant to learn English? There�s little doubt today that the world over, English has become the language of social mobility, and there�s a widespread desire to learn it. At home, in both our countries, as we know, institutes offering to teach English have sprung up everywhere and they are always fully subscribed. So what is it that holds Indians and Pakistanis in Britain back from this?
My own sense is that we�re asking the wrong questions here. The question isn�t about whether people wish to learn English or not. Rather, it is much more about how immigrant communities are made to feel at home, about their rights and privileges, about their sense of self. One might just as well ask: What has the state done to help such communities integrate? Have Diwali and Eid for example, become part of the national calendar? Are there community centres and pubs and coffee places that are self-consciously and deliberately multicultural and that encourage people to sit together and talk? Have governments thought of new and innovative ways of ensuring that their �other� citizens have the same rights and privileges as their mainstream citizens, and that they know these rights belong to them?
Dealing with difference isn�t always easy. Where do you draw the line? How far do you encourage and sustain difference and how far do you try to homogenise things? As the French move to ban the veil has shown, coercion is no answer. People have to be convinced of the logic and reason for change, they have to feel it works for them. How would it be if we insisted that foreign men in our countries had to wear either the dhoti or the awami suit? Much better, perhaps, to engage people in dialogue, to sit down and talk, and to find a solution that works for everyone. I�m not sure what message our politician took back to England with him, but it certainly wasn�t one that blamed communities for not integrating, instead it was one that looked at the question of integration as one from which both sides, if one can say that, gained.
A few days ago, quite by chance, I happened to find myself at lunch with a member of the British political establishment. For a while, the conversation remained desultory and ranged over the usual subjects � India, economic growth, food, Indian business in Britain and so on. And then, suddenly, things began to heat up. We found ourselves talking about immigrant communities in the West. What began as a general discussion on whether and how immigrant communities �integrate� into the culture of the adopted country, turned specifically to discussing Indians and Pakistanis in Britain.
Why was it, our host asked, that there was such a strong attachment to the home culture and, in many cases, such a resistance to integrating. In many places, he pointed out, immigrants even refused to learn the language of their adoptive country, in this case English, and this then meant that they could not move into the mainstream economic sphere, and they thus remained economically backward. He pointed to many stories he had heard, especially of Pakistanis, who could go through 16 years of schooling in Britain without learning English, or even showing a desire to learn it. And what mystified him even more was that these were not first generation immigrants who still carried the memory of the homeland with them, these were children born and raised in Britain, and for them there was no such memory to hold on to.
The politician�s concern was quite genuine. How do you deal with your political constituencies if one set of them always elects to stay �outside�? But I�m not sure the reasons he gave � he pinpointed only the reluctance to learn the language � are adequate to explain what is increasingly becoming a problem in diasporic communities. For too long, migration, � or rather voluntary migration, when people go out in search of jobs or better lives � has been looked upon somewhat askance, especially if it is people from the erstwhile Third World countries moving to the so-called developed world. It�s almost as if, in seeking to improve their lives by going elsewhere, these people are doing something not quite right.
This attitude towards immigrants holds both for the home country and the adoptive one � in one you are seen as a deserter and in the other as, at best, an unwelcome guest. So the onus of making yourself feel at home, of acquiring a new identity, of �integrating�, is put upon the immigrant. Whatever services the state provides seem almost to be given reluctantly, and are often accompanied by a discourse � not a state discourse but an independent one, which makes it that much more difficult to address � of resentment, anger, prejudice and, sometimes, just sheer envy. None of this encourages immigrants to try and integrate, rather it pushes them in the opposite direction.
And then, if there�s already a community in existence, as there is virtually everywhere in England and America, you tend to remain within it, not seeking to enter a world that you feel is hostile to you. And you have to be driven to the wall to protest because protest means mobilisation, it means numbers, it means making yourself vulnerable, it means tackling the strength of an increasingly coercive state. Small wonder then, that most immigrant communities duck their heads and carry on doing their own thing.
It isn�t only their relationship with the adoptive country that is problematic, but, especially for first generation immigrants, it�s very important to keep the connection with home, and to ensure that subsequent generations keep it too. This, as has often been seen, results in a somewhat static idea of what things are like at �home� and has also often led to a more dangerous phenomenon; the tacit support and the very real funding provided by diasporic communities to right-wing movements at home � there�s plenty of evidence of this and I don�t need to go into it here.
But let me come back to our politician and his concerns. Why should South Asian immigrant communities in Britain be reluctant to learn English? There�s little doubt today that the world over, English has become the language of social mobility, and there�s a widespread desire to learn it. At home, in both our countries, as we know, institutes offering to teach English have sprung up everywhere and they are always fully subscribed. So what is it that holds Indians and Pakistanis in Britain back from this?
My own sense is that we�re asking the wrong questions here. The question isn�t about whether people wish to learn English or not. Rather, it is much more about how immigrant communities are made to feel at home, about their rights and privileges, about their sense of self. One might just as well ask: What has the state done to help such communities integrate? Have Diwali and Eid for example, become part of the national calendar? Are there community centres and pubs and coffee places that are self-consciously and deliberately multicultural and that encourage people to sit together and talk? Have governments thought of new and innovative ways of ensuring that their �other� citizens have the same rights and privileges as their mainstream citizens, and that they know these rights belong to them?
Dealing with difference isn�t always easy. Where do you draw the line? How far do you encourage and sustain difference and how far do you try to homogenise things? As the French move to ban the veil has shown, coercion is no answer. People have to be convinced of the logic and reason for change, they have to feel it works for them. How would it be if we insisted that foreign men in our countries had to wear either the dhoti or the awami suit? Much better, perhaps, to engage people in dialogue, to sit down and talk, and to find a solution that works for everyone. I�m not sure what message our politician took back to England with him, but it certainly wasn�t one that blamed communities for not integrating, instead it was one that looked at the question of integration as one from which both sides, if one can say that, gained.
tattoo Related Links: Eva Pigford
gomirage
06-07 03:05 PM
That's true. We should not look at buying a house as a sound investment because it is really not. I bought a house for my own happiness and satisfaction of a living a nice life in my lifetime.
What would I do with the tons of money invested somewhere else while I live in an apartment? Most probably, I would just spend it on vacation, travel the whole world, or probably lose some of the returns in buying a nice home at inflated price in the future.
I completely agree with you. Just as s side note I am also planning on buying in a year or two, as my daughter gets older and needs more playing toys. She certainly can't do that in the apartment we live in now. I will be looking for something in my current rent range.
What would I do with the tons of money invested somewhere else while I live in an apartment? Most probably, I would just spend it on vacation, travel the whole world, or probably lose some of the returns in buying a nice home at inflated price in the future.
I completely agree with you. Just as s side note I am also planning on buying in a year or two, as my daughter gets older and needs more playing toys. She certainly can't do that in the apartment we live in now. I will be looking for something in my current rent range.
more...
pictures does eva pigford have a texturizer eva
mariner5555
04-14 04:41 PM
but most of the people that I know of, who have very young kids ( 1 - 5/6 year olds) ..buying a house was a right decision. (and common sense says the same thing).
I know people who bought townhouses, not big houses (thus paying mortgage which is slightly more than the apartment rents). They are not slogging extra and they are having single income. I keep re-iterating that what I meant is when things are conducive and situation is right. I do not know which part of that you do not understand.
I said there are exceptions ..which part of that you don't understand !!
since you are resting yr case ..I won't drag this more.
I know people who bought townhouses, not big houses (thus paying mortgage which is slightly more than the apartment rents). They are not slogging extra and they are having single income. I keep re-iterating that what I meant is when things are conducive and situation is right. I do not know which part of that you do not understand.
I said there are exceptions ..which part of that you don't understand !!
since you are resting yr case ..I won't drag this more.
dresses Does eva pigford still model
delax
07-14 09:35 AM
Well, why is there 33% quota for EB1,2 and 3 in the first place. They could have very well made it 100% for Eb1 and if there was any spill over, EB2 gets them and then finally EB3! Because, US needs people from all categories.
Now all that I am saying is there should be some % on the spill over that comes from EB1.
If there are 300,000 applicants in EB2 and if the spill over from EB1 is 30K every year, you think it is fair that EB2 gets that for over 6-7 years without EB3 getting anything? That is not fair and if that's what the law says, it has to be revisited. I am saying give 75% or even 90% to EB2 and make sure you clear EB3 with PD as old 2001 and 2002. That is being human. They deserve a GC as much as an EB2 with 2007 (and I am not saying that EB3 2007 deserves as much as an EB2 2007).
Bottom line, EB3 (or for that matter any category) can't be asked to wait endlessly just because there are some smart kids in another queue! We can come up with a better format of the letter; we can change our strategy to address this issue; we do not have to talk about EB2 and mention only our problems. We want EB3 queue to move.
Actually its 28.6% of the worlwide total for each category, but I'll ignore your ignorance about that. Remember that once a country retrogresses, there is a specific ORDER laid down by law on how to allocate visa numbers. It is only after the higher reservoir is full that visa numbers flow to the lower reservoir. If you are asking to fill both reserviors partially then what answer do you have to the EB2 candidate who did not get a visa number because an EB3 either ROW or from a retro country was allocated that number purely based on the length of wait.
Please understand that Law in general and immigration law in particular is about DUE PROCESS and DUE NOTICE. This flies in the face of both. Your argument is completely invalid for an EB-2 cadidate who did not get the visa number because of your 'fairness' rule.
If you sow the wind you'll reap the whirlwind!
Now all that I am saying is there should be some % on the spill over that comes from EB1.
If there are 300,000 applicants in EB2 and if the spill over from EB1 is 30K every year, you think it is fair that EB2 gets that for over 6-7 years without EB3 getting anything? That is not fair and if that's what the law says, it has to be revisited. I am saying give 75% or even 90% to EB2 and make sure you clear EB3 with PD as old 2001 and 2002. That is being human. They deserve a GC as much as an EB2 with 2007 (and I am not saying that EB3 2007 deserves as much as an EB2 2007).
Bottom line, EB3 (or for that matter any category) can't be asked to wait endlessly just because there are some smart kids in another queue! We can come up with a better format of the letter; we can change our strategy to address this issue; we do not have to talk about EB2 and mention only our problems. We want EB3 queue to move.
Actually its 28.6% of the worlwide total for each category, but I'll ignore your ignorance about that. Remember that once a country retrogresses, there is a specific ORDER laid down by law on how to allocate visa numbers. It is only after the higher reservoir is full that visa numbers flow to the lower reservoir. If you are asking to fill both reserviors partially then what answer do you have to the EB2 candidate who did not get a visa number because an EB3 either ROW or from a retro country was allocated that number purely based on the length of wait.
Please understand that Law in general and immigration law in particular is about DUE PROCESS and DUE NOTICE. This flies in the face of both. Your argument is completely invalid for an EB-2 cadidate who did not get the visa number because of your 'fairness' rule.
If you sow the wind you'll reap the whirlwind!
more...
makeup When model Eva Marcille
Macaca
05-18 05:36 PM
Moving back to America
The dwindling allure of building factories offshore (http://www.economist.com/node/18682182)
The Economist
�WHEN clients are considering opening another manufacturing plant in China, I�ve started to urge them to consider alternative locations,� says Hal Sirkin of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). �Have they thought about Vietnam, say? Or maybe [they could] even try Made in USA?� When clients are American firms looking to build factories to serve American customers, Mr Sirkin is increasingly likely to suggest they stay at home, not for patriotic reasons but because the economics of globalisation are changing fast.
Labour arbitrage�taking advantage of lower wages abroad, especially in poor countries�has never been the only force pushing multinationals to locate offshore, but it has certainly played a big part. Now, however, as emerging economies boom, wages there are rising. Pay for factory workers in China, for example, soared by 69% between 2005 and 2010. So the gains from labour arbitrage are starting to shrink, in some cases to the point of irrelevance, according to a new study by BCG.
�Sometime around 2015, manufacturers will be indifferent between locating in America or China for production for consumption in America,� says Mr Sirkin. That calculation assumes that wage growth will continue at around 17% a year in China but remain relatively slow in America, and that productivity growth will continue on current trends in both countries. It also assumes a modest appreciation of the yuan against the dollar.
The year 2015 is not far off. Factories take time to build, and can carry on cranking out widgets for years. So firms planning today for production tomorrow are increasingly looking close to home. BCG lists several examples of companies that have already brought plants and jobs back to America. Caterpillar, a maker of vehicles that dig, pull or plough, is shifting some of its excavator production from abroad to Texas. Sauder, an American furniture-maker, is moving production back home from low-wage countries. NCR has returned production of cash machines to Georgia (the American state, not the country that is occasionally invaded by Russia). Wham-O last year restored half of its Frisbee and Hula Hoop production to America from China and Mexico.
BCG predicts a �manufacturing renaissance� in America. There are reasons to be sceptical. The surge of manufacturing output in the past year or so has largely been about recovering ground lost during the downturn. Moreover, some of the new factories in America have been wooed by subsidies that may soon dry up. But still, the new economics of labour arbitrage will make a difference.
Rather than a stampede of plants coming home, �higher wages in China may cause some firms that were going to scale back in the US to keep their options open by continuing to operate a plant in America,� says Gary Pisano of Harvard Business School. The announcement on May 10th by General Motors (GM) that it will invest $2 billion to add up to 4,000 jobs at 17 American plants supports Mr Pisano�s point. GM is probably not creating many new jobs but keeping in America jobs that it might otherwise have exported.
Even if wages in China explode, some multinationals will find it hard to bring many jobs back to America, argues Mr Pisano. In some areas, such as consumer electronics, America no longer has the necessary supplier base or infrastructure. Firms did not realise when they shifted operations to low-wage countries that some moves �would be almost irreversible�, says Mr Pisano.
Many multinationals will continue to build most of their new factories in emerging markets, not to export stuff back home but because that is where demand is growing fastest. And companies from other rich countries will probably continue to enjoy the opportunity for labour arbitrage for longer than American ones, says Mr Sirkin. Their labour costs are higher than America�s and will remain so unless the euro falls sharply against the yuan.
There�s no place like home
The opportunity for labour arbitrage is disappearing fastest in basic manufacturing and in China. Other sectors and countries are less affected. As Pankaj Ghemawat, the author of �World 3.0�, points out, despite rapidly rising wages in India, its software and back-office offshoring industry is likely to retain its cost advantage for the foreseeable future, not least because of its rapid productivity growth.
Nonetheless, a growing number of multinationals, especially from rich countries, are starting to see the benefits of keeping more of their operations close to home. For many products, labour is a small and diminishing fraction of total costs. And long, complex supply chains turn out to be riskier than many firms realised. When oil prices soar, transport grows dearer. When an epidemic such as SARS hits Asia or when an earthquake hits Japan, supply chains are disrupted. �There has been a definite shortening of supply chains, especially of those that had 30 or 40 processing steps,� says Mr Ghemawat.
Firms are also trying to reduce their inventory costs. Importing from China to the United States may require a company to hold 100 days of inventory. That burden can be handily reduced if the goods are made nearer home (though that could be in Mexico rather than in America).
Companies are thinking in more sophisticated ways about their supply chains. Bosses no longer assume that they should always make things in the country with the lowest wages. Increasingly, it makes sense to make things in a variety of places, including America.
Fair Trade Revealed As Feel-Good Hoax (http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2011/05/fair-trade-revealed-as-feel-good-hoax.html) By Mungowitz | Kids Prefer Cheese
Digging Deeper Into What Caused Job Losses (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/digging-deeper-into-what-caused-job-losses/) By CASEY B. MULLIGAN | Economix
What's Wrong With Tech CEOs? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576329112614004894.html) By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. | Wall Street Journal
In Hiring, Firms Shine Images (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576307210092435484.html) By JOE LIGHT | Wall Street Journal
The Great Recession's lost generation (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/17/news/economy/recession_lost_generation/index.htm) By Chris Isidore | CNNMoney
Top 10 Thriving Industries (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/16/top-10-thriving-industries/) By Phil Izzo | Wall Street Journal
The dwindling allure of building factories offshore (http://www.economist.com/node/18682182)
The Economist
�WHEN clients are considering opening another manufacturing plant in China, I�ve started to urge them to consider alternative locations,� says Hal Sirkin of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). �Have they thought about Vietnam, say? Or maybe [they could] even try Made in USA?� When clients are American firms looking to build factories to serve American customers, Mr Sirkin is increasingly likely to suggest they stay at home, not for patriotic reasons but because the economics of globalisation are changing fast.
Labour arbitrage�taking advantage of lower wages abroad, especially in poor countries�has never been the only force pushing multinationals to locate offshore, but it has certainly played a big part. Now, however, as emerging economies boom, wages there are rising. Pay for factory workers in China, for example, soared by 69% between 2005 and 2010. So the gains from labour arbitrage are starting to shrink, in some cases to the point of irrelevance, according to a new study by BCG.
�Sometime around 2015, manufacturers will be indifferent between locating in America or China for production for consumption in America,� says Mr Sirkin. That calculation assumes that wage growth will continue at around 17% a year in China but remain relatively slow in America, and that productivity growth will continue on current trends in both countries. It also assumes a modest appreciation of the yuan against the dollar.
The year 2015 is not far off. Factories take time to build, and can carry on cranking out widgets for years. So firms planning today for production tomorrow are increasingly looking close to home. BCG lists several examples of companies that have already brought plants and jobs back to America. Caterpillar, a maker of vehicles that dig, pull or plough, is shifting some of its excavator production from abroad to Texas. Sauder, an American furniture-maker, is moving production back home from low-wage countries. NCR has returned production of cash machines to Georgia (the American state, not the country that is occasionally invaded by Russia). Wham-O last year restored half of its Frisbee and Hula Hoop production to America from China and Mexico.
BCG predicts a �manufacturing renaissance� in America. There are reasons to be sceptical. The surge of manufacturing output in the past year or so has largely been about recovering ground lost during the downturn. Moreover, some of the new factories in America have been wooed by subsidies that may soon dry up. But still, the new economics of labour arbitrage will make a difference.
Rather than a stampede of plants coming home, �higher wages in China may cause some firms that were going to scale back in the US to keep their options open by continuing to operate a plant in America,� says Gary Pisano of Harvard Business School. The announcement on May 10th by General Motors (GM) that it will invest $2 billion to add up to 4,000 jobs at 17 American plants supports Mr Pisano�s point. GM is probably not creating many new jobs but keeping in America jobs that it might otherwise have exported.
Even if wages in China explode, some multinationals will find it hard to bring many jobs back to America, argues Mr Pisano. In some areas, such as consumer electronics, America no longer has the necessary supplier base or infrastructure. Firms did not realise when they shifted operations to low-wage countries that some moves �would be almost irreversible�, says Mr Pisano.
Many multinationals will continue to build most of their new factories in emerging markets, not to export stuff back home but because that is where demand is growing fastest. And companies from other rich countries will probably continue to enjoy the opportunity for labour arbitrage for longer than American ones, says Mr Sirkin. Their labour costs are higher than America�s and will remain so unless the euro falls sharply against the yuan.
There�s no place like home
The opportunity for labour arbitrage is disappearing fastest in basic manufacturing and in China. Other sectors and countries are less affected. As Pankaj Ghemawat, the author of �World 3.0�, points out, despite rapidly rising wages in India, its software and back-office offshoring industry is likely to retain its cost advantage for the foreseeable future, not least because of its rapid productivity growth.
Nonetheless, a growing number of multinationals, especially from rich countries, are starting to see the benefits of keeping more of their operations close to home. For many products, labour is a small and diminishing fraction of total costs. And long, complex supply chains turn out to be riskier than many firms realised. When oil prices soar, transport grows dearer. When an epidemic such as SARS hits Asia or when an earthquake hits Japan, supply chains are disrupted. �There has been a definite shortening of supply chains, especially of those that had 30 or 40 processing steps,� says Mr Ghemawat.
Firms are also trying to reduce their inventory costs. Importing from China to the United States may require a company to hold 100 days of inventory. That burden can be handily reduced if the goods are made nearer home (though that could be in Mexico rather than in America).
Companies are thinking in more sophisticated ways about their supply chains. Bosses no longer assume that they should always make things in the country with the lowest wages. Increasingly, it makes sense to make things in a variety of places, including America.
Fair Trade Revealed As Feel-Good Hoax (http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2011/05/fair-trade-revealed-as-feel-good-hoax.html) By Mungowitz | Kids Prefer Cheese
Digging Deeper Into What Caused Job Losses (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/digging-deeper-into-what-caused-job-losses/) By CASEY B. MULLIGAN | Economix
What's Wrong With Tech CEOs? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576329112614004894.html) By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. | Wall Street Journal
In Hiring, Firms Shine Images (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576307210092435484.html) By JOE LIGHT | Wall Street Journal
The Great Recession's lost generation (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/17/news/economy/recession_lost_generation/index.htm) By Chris Isidore | CNNMoney
Top 10 Thriving Industries (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/16/top-10-thriving-industries/) By Phil Izzo | Wall Street Journal
girlfriend eva pigford
chanduv23
02-15 10:58 AM
As we are not voting public and voting public are against us, and employers do little for us, what is the basis in which we can influence politicians buy our cause?
hairstyles With Whack Punk Haircut
ca_immigrant
06-23 03:48 PM
Yea your calculation is a little off. 400,000 financed @ 5% 30 year fixed is $2,148. Factor in your taxes and insurance in escrow thats a total of (approximately, im guessing for your area) $2,500 total. Plus your HOA of $250/month thats 2750 which sounds about right with gapala's calculation. Your closing costs, give or take should also be factored, approx. 10-30k.
So that comes to 33k/yoy in expenses. That may not be bad when your making six figure incomes or combined household incoming is 150K+, since 20k+ of interest is deductible yoy, but imo i wouldnt buy a 500k+ property unless there is some sort of income to bring down my monthly cost, like a rental unit.
Townhouses here in NY are very similar to condos so I'm assuming that its the same there. I personally would not pay 500k for something similar to a condo unless its in Manhattan. Just curious why not buy a house instead of a townhouse? Unless thats the norm in that area. I would prefer to take care of the house myself than pay maintenance and HoA dues. You learn a lot more and grow as a homeowner.
Sorry and thanks for the correction....I missed the closing costs...
but from what I know it is 1% of the home price ? so around $ 5000. (again not sure)
as for the calculation....I did not take into consideration the principle....as that is not an expense.....
as someone said earlier...no calculation might make sense if prices keep falling down...
As I said ...Is there risk invloved...? of course yes -;)
So that comes to 33k/yoy in expenses. That may not be bad when your making six figure incomes or combined household incoming is 150K+, since 20k+ of interest is deductible yoy, but imo i wouldnt buy a 500k+ property unless there is some sort of income to bring down my monthly cost, like a rental unit.
Townhouses here in NY are very similar to condos so I'm assuming that its the same there. I personally would not pay 500k for something similar to a condo unless its in Manhattan. Just curious why not buy a house instead of a townhouse? Unless thats the norm in that area. I would prefer to take care of the house myself than pay maintenance and HoA dues. You learn a lot more and grow as a homeowner.
Sorry and thanks for the correction....I missed the closing costs...
but from what I know it is 1% of the home price ? so around $ 5000. (again not sure)
as for the calculation....I did not take into consideration the principle....as that is not an expense.....
as someone said earlier...no calculation might make sense if prices keep falling down...
As I said ...Is there risk invloved...? of course yes -;)
vbkris77
03-31 07:42 PM
I am not convinced with the whole systematic preadjudication logic at all. I think it has to do with the mistakenly released memo by USCIS and the criteria which is listed in it. Companies meeting the criteria listed in that memo's H1s/I140s are being looked at and I485 app in the same file. There is no trend in the posts on this site by people who received RFEs to suggest systematic preadjudication, they are all over the place. EB2, EB3 - priority date-years ranging from 2001 to 2006, received RFEs.
May be their receipt dates are close.. Remember, CIS can't sort the application by PD. They can process in FIFO of RD.
May be their receipt dates are close.. Remember, CIS can't sort the application by PD. They can process in FIFO of RD.
Macaca
11-29 08:43 PM
Breaux to leave Patton Boggs to start own firm with son (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/breaux-to-leave-patton-boggs-to-start-own-firm-with-son-2007-11-28.html) By Jim Snyder | The Hill, November 28, 2007
Former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) is leaving Patton Boggs to form his own firm with his lobbyist son, John Breaux Jr.
Breaux has worked at the lobbying firm since retiring from the Senate in 2004. He said in a statement that he may continue to have an association with the firm, which was co-founded by fellow Louisianan Thomas Boggs.
�Tom Boggs and the Patton Boggs firm have been a professional family for me since I retired from the Congress almost three years ago. It has been a rewarding experience in which I have learned a great deal from my colleagues, who are also my friends, but the challenge and opportunity to start a new business with my son is something that I cannot pass up,� Breaux said in a statement sent to Patton Boggs employees.
Breaux and Patton Boggs were continuing to discuss how Breaux could continue to serve as counsel and provide strategic advice to the firm, according to the statement.
Breaux�s announcement comes two days after the surprise retirement of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who is expected to begin a lobbying career. Some lobbyists have speculated that Lott and Breaux, both known as dealmakers in the Senate, might go into business together. Lott�s son Chester is also a lobbyist.
Chester Lott told Bloomberg News that his father was considering lobbying with Sen. Breaux, and said the two have a �great relationship.�
Thomas Boggs praised Breaux in a statement announcing the former senator�s departure: �We have all benefited immeasurably from our personal and professional association with John, we wish him well in his new venture, and look forward to continuing our personal friendship and professional collaboration for many years to come.�
Former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) is leaving Patton Boggs to form his own firm with his lobbyist son, John Breaux Jr.
Breaux has worked at the lobbying firm since retiring from the Senate in 2004. He said in a statement that he may continue to have an association with the firm, which was co-founded by fellow Louisianan Thomas Boggs.
�Tom Boggs and the Patton Boggs firm have been a professional family for me since I retired from the Congress almost three years ago. It has been a rewarding experience in which I have learned a great deal from my colleagues, who are also my friends, but the challenge and opportunity to start a new business with my son is something that I cannot pass up,� Breaux said in a statement sent to Patton Boggs employees.
Breaux and Patton Boggs were continuing to discuss how Breaux could continue to serve as counsel and provide strategic advice to the firm, according to the statement.
Breaux�s announcement comes two days after the surprise retirement of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who is expected to begin a lobbying career. Some lobbyists have speculated that Lott and Breaux, both known as dealmakers in the Senate, might go into business together. Lott�s son Chester is also a lobbyist.
Chester Lott told Bloomberg News that his father was considering lobbying with Sen. Breaux, and said the two have a �great relationship.�
Thomas Boggs praised Breaux in a statement announcing the former senator�s departure: �We have all benefited immeasurably from our personal and professional association with John, we wish him well in his new venture, and look forward to continuing our personal friendship and professional collaboration for many years to come.�
No comments:
Post a Comment