StuckInTheMuck
08-08 05:26 PM
Judy was having trouble with her computer. So she called Tony, the computer guy, over to her desk. Tony clicked a couple buttons and solved the problem. As he was walking away, Judy called after him, "So, what was wrong?"
And he replied, "It was an ID Ten T Error."
A puzzled expression ran riot over Judy's face. "An ID Ten T Error? What's that ... in case I need to fix it again?"
He gave her a grin... "Haven't you ever heard of an ID Ten T Error before?"
"No," replied Judy.
"Write it down," he said, "and I think you'll figure it out."
(She wrote...) I D 1 0 T
And he replied, "It was an ID Ten T Error."
A puzzled expression ran riot over Judy's face. "An ID Ten T Error? What's that ... in case I need to fix it again?"
He gave her a grin... "Haven't you ever heard of an ID Ten T Error before?"
"No," replied Judy.
"Write it down," he said, "and I think you'll figure it out."
(She wrote...) I D 1 0 T
wallpaper if you had a heart-attack
mrajatish
07-08 11:01 AM
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Particularly worried about what you just mentioned about USCIS using other means to deny application - this seems to go against the principle of 245(K) which was to allow folks to get GC irrespective of a violation in the past. If the intent is to not let folks use 245(K), why even publish such a law? MOre importantly, for folks who have been staying and working in a country for many years (read > 5 yrs), it is possible that they might have some glitches and 245(K) was there to cover that (I am not saying every one has gone through this but a lot of people in 2000/01/02 went through this).
What are the grounds for I-485 denial if my I-140 is approved?
The followings are the grounds for an I-485 denial.
a. Some crimes committed by the applicant.
b. The applicant is out of status or illegally worked for over 180 days.
c. If the I-140 is employer-sponsored, the applicant changes job before I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
d. The applicant drastically changes occupation or job field.
e. The applicant travels abroad without Advance Parole (H/L visa or status is excepted).
f. The applicant’s failure to RFE or fingerprint.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Particularly worried about what you just mentioned about USCIS using other means to deny application - this seems to go against the principle of 245(K) which was to allow folks to get GC irrespective of a violation in the past. If the intent is to not let folks use 245(K), why even publish such a law? MOre importantly, for folks who have been staying and working in a country for many years (read > 5 yrs), it is possible that they might have some glitches and 245(K) was there to cover that (I am not saying every one has gone through this but a lot of people in 2000/01/02 went through this).
What are the grounds for I-485 denial if my I-140 is approved?
The followings are the grounds for an I-485 denial.
a. Some crimes committed by the applicant.
b. The applicant is out of status or illegally worked for over 180 days.
c. If the I-140 is employer-sponsored, the applicant changes job before I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
d. The applicant drastically changes occupation or job field.
e. The applicant travels abroad without Advance Parole (H/L visa or status is excepted).
f. The applicant’s failure to RFE or fingerprint.
dixie
07-17 02:46 AM
This thread is very interesting to me. I've kind of lived though both sides, and it is really aweful for everyone but the abusive employer.
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
For the record, we are neutral on the issue of H1-B visa increases. We neither support nor oppose increasing H1-B visas. The last thing we want to see is even more gullible H1-B folks with GC mirages being added to our midst. However, it often happens that ANY reform to the EB program is clubbed together with H1-B increases .. thanks to corporate lobbying or whatever .. in such cases we obviously have to support the broad package of high skilled immigration reform.
We DO NOT deny the fact that H1-B has loopholes that make us vulnerable for exploitation .. that is one of our major reasons for pushing GC reforms. Our grouse with the likes of PG, lou dobbs etc is that they offer a one-sided criticism of the H1-B program full of half-truths, outright lies and insinuations about us "stealing" jobs. They highlight the exploitation part only to promote their agenda .. those occasional noises about giving GCs instead of H1-Bs is exactly that. Their real agenda is an end to all skilled immigration. Had they sincerely promoted balanced skilled immigration reform like tighter enforcement of H1-B provisions that protect US workers along with faster GC process for those meeting those tighter requirements, I would have gladly supported them.
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
For the record, we are neutral on the issue of H1-B visa increases. We neither support nor oppose increasing H1-B visas. The last thing we want to see is even more gullible H1-B folks with GC mirages being added to our midst. However, it often happens that ANY reform to the EB program is clubbed together with H1-B increases .. thanks to corporate lobbying or whatever .. in such cases we obviously have to support the broad package of high skilled immigration reform.
We DO NOT deny the fact that H1-B has loopholes that make us vulnerable for exploitation .. that is one of our major reasons for pushing GC reforms. Our grouse with the likes of PG, lou dobbs etc is that they offer a one-sided criticism of the H1-B program full of half-truths, outright lies and insinuations about us "stealing" jobs. They highlight the exploitation part only to promote their agenda .. those occasional noises about giving GCs instead of H1-Bs is exactly that. Their real agenda is an end to all skilled immigration. Had they sincerely promoted balanced skilled immigration reform like tighter enforcement of H1-B provisions that protect US workers along with faster GC process for those meeting those tighter requirements, I would have gladly supported them.
2011 Kid having a heart attack
jonty_11
07-13 05:51 PM
willwin - What we are essentially saying is to artificially retrogress EB2 than it otherwise would have so that an EB3 who is waiting for 7 years gets his GC first - thats really what the spillover break up will do. Similarly an argument can be made to artificially retrogress EB1 so that an EB2 who is waiting for 4 years gets his GC first.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initiatives like - call campaigns for House bills...etc. As I have said before IV is working for one and all...w/o caring for their categories. It was not IV that created this spillover policy...however IV is the one that will fight for you irrespective of whether you are EB1, 2 or 3. The key is to post a united front and some level of participation from every member...I was sad to see Pappu publish low numbers for contributions and phone calls....and only wish we would come together as a group rather than breaking apart.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initiatives like - call campaigns for House bills...etc. As I have said before IV is working for one and all...w/o caring for their categories. It was not IV that created this spillover policy...however IV is the one that will fight for you irrespective of whether you are EB1, 2 or 3. The key is to post a united front and some level of participation from every member...I was sad to see Pappu publish low numbers for contributions and phone calls....and only wish we would come together as a group rather than breaking apart.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
more...
ashkam
04-15 03:18 PM
Seriously? Yes.
Not me as I am arguing that a home is better than an apt, but some people here disagree for their own reasons.
Yes I have been reading some pretty bizarre responses. Apparently if you own a bigger house, you suddenly become incapable of giving your child love. Well, you learn something new everyday.
Not me as I am arguing that a home is better than an apt, but some people here disagree for their own reasons.
Yes I have been reading some pretty bizarre responses. Apparently if you own a bigger house, you suddenly become incapable of giving your child love. Well, you learn something new everyday.
chanduv23
03-24 02:48 PM
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
Well - that is because we have a lot of opposition. Employers want us ONLY for the business, lawyers handle stuff with USCIS and employers and guide them accordingly - for lawyers - this complex web is bread and butter.
It is our visibility and vulnerability that puts focus on us.
Remember - it is not your fault if you get a call from USCIS asking for paperwork like the original poster. It is just that there is so much focus on people like us.
Also remember - nothing is over - as long as the original poster has followed the law and handles it he/she must be fine.
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
Well - that is because we have a lot of opposition. Employers want us ONLY for the business, lawyers handle stuff with USCIS and employers and guide them accordingly - for lawyers - this complex web is bread and butter.
It is our visibility and vulnerability that puts focus on us.
Remember - it is not your fault if you get a call from USCIS asking for paperwork like the original poster. It is just that there is so much focus on people like us.
Also remember - nothing is over - as long as the original poster has followed the law and handles it he/she must be fine.
more...
sanjaymk
08-05 05:34 PM
no joke list is complete without little johnny's joke..here is one. This is the only decent one that I found which will not get me into trouble here..
Little Johnny's teacher asks, "George Washington not only chopped down his father's Cherry tree, but also admitted doing it. Do any of you know why his father didn't punish him?"
Little Johnny replies, "Because George was the one holding the axe?
Little Johnny's teacher asks, "George Washington not only chopped down his father's Cherry tree, but also admitted doing it. Do any of you know why his father didn't punish him?"
Little Johnny replies, "Because George was the one holding the axe?
2010 Heart Attack Grill Restaurant
baala9
08-06 10:43 AM
Okay lets take your example. A & B are graduates with a Bachelors degree (A is a Mechanical and B is Computer Science). A decides to pursue higher study in Mechanical field and B takes up a Software job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school. A joins a software company (His Masters in Mechanical is worth nothing now). EB2 is filed for A just because he has a Masters, B is also eligible for EB2 by that time. Why can't B get a earlier PD? Atleast B got relevant industry experience. How come A is superior than B?
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
In that case A will be eligible only for a EB3 based on the Job requirement.( Since eligibility is based on the Job requirement and not the person's qualification)
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
In that case A will be eligible only for a EB3 based on the Job requirement.( Since eligibility is based on the Job requirement and not the person's qualification)
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-06 12:48 PM
How to tell the sex of a fly
I stopped at a friends house the other day and found him stalking around the kitchen with a flyswatter.
When I asked if he had gotten any flies he answered, "Yeah, 5 .... 3 males and 2 females."
Curious, I inquired as to how he could tell the difference.
He answered, "It's easy, 3 were on a beer can and 2 were on the phone.
I stopped at a friends house the other day and found him stalking around the kitchen with a flyswatter.
When I asked if he had gotten any flies he answered, "Yeah, 5 .... 3 males and 2 females."
Curious, I inquired as to how he could tell the difference.
He answered, "It's easy, 3 were on a beer can and 2 were on the phone.
hair The Heart Attack Grill in
Macaca
03-13 08:29 PM
Some paras from New Math on Hill, Scramble on K Street (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201579.html) -- The House's pledge of fiscal restraint could threaten tax breaks across many industries. Businesses and the lobbyists who represent them are on high alert.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:28 PM
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the other, "Does this taste funny to you?"
NO RED DOT (with comment - Racist Joke) FOR THIS JOKE PLEASE ;)
NO RED DOT (with comment - Racist Joke) FOR THIS JOKE PLEASE ;)
hot Heart Attack Grill,
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
more...
house Funny as a heart attack 2.25quot; Button. Designer: Attack of the Radioactive
alisa
12-27 12:08 AM
So what in your opinion is the reason for the state and the government of Pakistan to provoke India, with the risk of starting a war with India that Pakistan cannot win, at a time when the economy is in a very very bad shape and there are multiple insurgencies and regular suicide attacks within Pakistan?
Not at all.
My 90 year old grandmother did this.
Not at all.
My 90 year old grandmother did this.
tattoo July 25, 2007 funny heart
Macaca
05-02 05:38 PM
Don't kowtow to China now (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-kowtow-to-china-now/story-fn59niix-1226047967727) By Paul Dibb | The Australian
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
more...
pictures from a heart attack while
jkays94
05-31 08:36 PM
Some CNN folks move to Fox but I doubt whether Lou stands a chance.
Dobb's was once CNN's executive VP, he quit CNN and returned later....
Dobbs left CNN in 2000, reportedly due to heated clashes with its president, Rick Kaplan, one of which actually occurred on-air when Kaplan suggested to cut from Moneyline to a live address by Bill Clinton at Columbine, which Dobbs believed was a staged event and not newsworthy. [2] Dobbs returned the following year at the behest of his friend and CNN founder Ted Turner, becoming host and managing editor of the new and initially more general news program Lou Dobbs Moneyline which later became Lou Dobbs Tonight. Dobbs also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, The Lou Dobbs Financial Report, and is a regular columnist in Money magazine, U.S. News & World Report, and the New York Daily News. [more] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs)
Dobb's was once CNN's executive VP, he quit CNN and returned later....
Dobbs left CNN in 2000, reportedly due to heated clashes with its president, Rick Kaplan, one of which actually occurred on-air when Kaplan suggested to cut from Moneyline to a live address by Bill Clinton at Columbine, which Dobbs believed was a staged event and not newsworthy. [2] Dobbs returned the following year at the behest of his friend and CNN founder Ted Turner, becoming host and managing editor of the new and initially more general news program Lou Dobbs Moneyline which later became Lou Dobbs Tonight. Dobbs also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, The Lou Dobbs Financial Report, and is a regular columnist in Money magazine, U.S. News & World Report, and the New York Daily News. [more] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs)
dresses makeup funny heart attack
paskal
07-08 09:15 PM
paskal..
seriously thinking about sending an email to Oppenheim, Charles to consider moving the dates in the bulletin liberally so no visas r lost each year..before there is another debacle with the October bulletin..
maybe he is the right person to hear our misery..but not sure if they even consider our emails and tell us not to teach them what to do..
Hi,
thanks for your enthusiasm, i would suggest though - not writing to good old charlie, and focusing instead on your local lawmakers (HR and senators).
We can make this fiasco a catalyst towards incremental reform of the immigration system. There remains a chance that we could get a bridging amendment before the year is up, to provide some relief at least- maybe recapture of numbers or 485 filing. If you have questions about what to send your lawmaker- or present a a meeting- look up your state chapter or contact iv core members- try sertasheep- send him a pm with your specific request.
seriously thinking about sending an email to Oppenheim, Charles to consider moving the dates in the bulletin liberally so no visas r lost each year..before there is another debacle with the October bulletin..
maybe he is the right person to hear our misery..but not sure if they even consider our emails and tell us not to teach them what to do..
Hi,
thanks for your enthusiasm, i would suggest though - not writing to good old charlie, and focusing instead on your local lawmakers (HR and senators).
We can make this fiasco a catalyst towards incremental reform of the immigration system. There remains a chance that we could get a bridging amendment before the year is up, to provide some relief at least- maybe recapture of numbers or 485 filing. If you have questions about what to send your lawmaker- or present a a meeting- look up your state chapter or contact iv core members- try sertasheep- send him a pm with your specific request.
more...
makeup 2010 funny heart attack
pthoko
07-11 10:10 AM
pthoko..
wait for UN's reply
but I think it is better to be honest on the G328 form and not lie as it mentions in coconut sized letters that we r mentioning the facts and signing the forms. Later on they will have all the rights to ask proof documents thru RFE for paystubs,w2 etc, after that we cannot lie anymore and might land in further mess. we submit all the H1/L1 approvals at the time of 485 filing..they can just enter the case# and get the whole history of the case...
AFAIK..I don't think yours is a violation of status, you were eligible to work on L1 until 2006 and also eligible to work on H1 since Oct 2005. In a H1 scenario,if I extend my H1 with current employer until next July, meanwhile find another employer and file a H1 with new employer until next July, after 4 months with new employer, you change your mind and want to go back to old employer..you can work with old employer until July as long as the old employer does not cancel your old H1..
* i140 stage,only the companies financial records r checked,you even need not be employed with them when you r filing the i140.
* 1st time stamping in Canada/Mexico for H1b is not possible I think as it has to be done in home country,unless you have a US Masters.
btw...I have a question, does your H1b approval have an i94 attached with it...? hopefully ..yes..
YES my H1B approval had an I-94 attached with it. Same no: as my L1 I-94.
Thanks.
wait for UN's reply
but I think it is better to be honest on the G328 form and not lie as it mentions in coconut sized letters that we r mentioning the facts and signing the forms. Later on they will have all the rights to ask proof documents thru RFE for paystubs,w2 etc, after that we cannot lie anymore and might land in further mess. we submit all the H1/L1 approvals at the time of 485 filing..they can just enter the case# and get the whole history of the case...
AFAIK..I don't think yours is a violation of status, you were eligible to work on L1 until 2006 and also eligible to work on H1 since Oct 2005. In a H1 scenario,if I extend my H1 with current employer until next July, meanwhile find another employer and file a H1 with new employer until next July, after 4 months with new employer, you change your mind and want to go back to old employer..you can work with old employer until July as long as the old employer does not cancel your old H1..
* i140 stage,only the companies financial records r checked,you even need not be employed with them when you r filing the i140.
* 1st time stamping in Canada/Mexico for H1b is not possible I think as it has to be done in home country,unless you have a US Masters.
btw...I have a question, does your H1b approval have an i94 attached with it...? hopefully ..yes..
YES my H1B approval had an I-94 attached with it. Same no: as my L1 I-94.
Thanks.
girlfriend a heart attack about that
rimzhim
04-09 11:00 AM
Why should others suffer because of consulting firms?
You get a job at company A you work for them. When you move to company B that company does your H1B.. if required again. Why should company A do your H1B than the individual work for somebody else as "consultant". This has been going on for too long affecting everybody especially scientists and doctors and academic community. These consultants are delaying GC for us. The bill takes care of that problem and I think its fair.
Also if the new bill requires repeating labor certification every time we move so be it. You are "best and brightest" correct.. prove it!
Don't want to sound selfish, but I agree 100% on this. Where I am employed as a scientist, the employer took great pains to show that I have not displaced any American worker. In fact they have a whole file with documents that support this fact. If I move, my new employer will do the same. I am not scared of this provision in the H1B bill. If you are really the best, only then you deserve to get the job, and then you have no reason to fear this bill.
You get a job at company A you work for them. When you move to company B that company does your H1B.. if required again. Why should company A do your H1B than the individual work for somebody else as "consultant". This has been going on for too long affecting everybody especially scientists and doctors and academic community. These consultants are delaying GC for us. The bill takes care of that problem and I think its fair.
Also if the new bill requires repeating labor certification every time we move so be it. You are "best and brightest" correct.. prove it!
Don't want to sound selfish, but I agree 100% on this. Where I am employed as a scientist, the employer took great pains to show that I have not displaced any American worker. In fact they have a whole file with documents that support this fact. If I move, my new employer will do the same. I am not scared of this provision in the H1B bill. If you are really the best, only then you deserve to get the job, and then you have no reason to fear this bill.
hairstyles about heart attacks - You
unitednations
08-09 01:38 PM
UN,
Did you face any questions about "Same or Similar" in the interview particularly for the time period when you were self employed?
Can you throw some light on how to handle the scenarios where the proferred wage is much lower than the current wage and once someone invokes AC21 the offered wage can be much higher . I understand that this scenario can be problematic in case of "future job" GCs.
My understanding of AC21 is this .. Dont invoke AC21 unless otherwise absolutely necessary?
This has been written about to many times. You need to research this on immigration.com.
As I said in the law while 485 is pending you do not have to do anything; you can do something totally irrelevant to what your employment is going to be upon greencard approval.
However; uscis starts digging into intent. I wasn't porting to self employment. I was porting to a different company upon greencard approval.
they were going to try to assess that if I was making too much money then how would i take another job with lower salary.
I personally don't agree with porting to self employment upon greencard approval (many have but we'll see if they should tighten it up). If you are a one person company; then how can the job be same/similar. You would have been doing the finance, marketing and the software engineer work. That in itself wouldn't make it a same/similar job.
My labor wasn't broad. if they were looking at same/similar; it would have been impossible for me to meet it. The position I had and the job duties were probably only available in maybe less then 25 companies. (one of the job duties was administering offshore investment companies).
Now; keep in mind; greencard meant absolutely nothing to me. I got into this because of what happened to my 140 and i took it as a challenge from uscis.
Did you face any questions about "Same or Similar" in the interview particularly for the time period when you were self employed?
Can you throw some light on how to handle the scenarios where the proferred wage is much lower than the current wage and once someone invokes AC21 the offered wage can be much higher . I understand that this scenario can be problematic in case of "future job" GCs.
My understanding of AC21 is this .. Dont invoke AC21 unless otherwise absolutely necessary?
This has been written about to many times. You need to research this on immigration.com.
As I said in the law while 485 is pending you do not have to do anything; you can do something totally irrelevant to what your employment is going to be upon greencard approval.
However; uscis starts digging into intent. I wasn't porting to self employment. I was porting to a different company upon greencard approval.
they were going to try to assess that if I was making too much money then how would i take another job with lower salary.
I personally don't agree with porting to self employment upon greencard approval (many have but we'll see if they should tighten it up). If you are a one person company; then how can the job be same/similar. You would have been doing the finance, marketing and the software engineer work. That in itself wouldn't make it a same/similar job.
My labor wasn't broad. if they were looking at same/similar; it would have been impossible for me to meet it. The position I had and the job duties were probably only available in maybe less then 25 companies. (one of the job duties was administering offshore investment companies).
Now; keep in mind; greencard meant absolutely nothing to me. I got into this because of what happened to my 140 and i took it as a challenge from uscis.
conchshell
08-05 06:51 PM
By the time, the lion gets the GC, he might have forgot he was a lion, and even after getting GC, he will continue to act like monkey.
Yes ... this leads to a pale and worried Lion keep worrying that whether he should stay with the current zoo for n number of days before taking a new position at some other zoo.
Looks like a story plot for Madagascar III
Yes ... this leads to a pale and worried Lion keep worrying that whether he should stay with the current zoo for n number of days before taking a new position at some other zoo.
Looks like a story plot for Madagascar III
sk2006
06-12 12:11 AM
This is for sharing and suggesting your views, ( :)who are not opposing for buying a home now or in the near future and those who are staying at Bay Area, CA or similar places in US) where the medium home price is still looks like quite unaffordable :
for example, in Bay Area, CA - places which has good school districts and neighbourhoods like Cupertino, Fremont, Redwood shores etc., (please add other good places also...) - the medium home price of a new independant home (anywhere from 1500 to 3000 sq.feet) will be atleast in the price range of $700000 - 2+ Millions.
Other options are :
1) Moving to the outskirts, around 40 or 50+ miles - places like San Ramon, Gilroy etc. (remember commute will be too hectic...). In these places also, the above mentioned homes will cost $450000 and up.
2) Go with an old condo/town home (in Bay Area, usually an old house is 25+ years YOUNG!!!) and after 5+ years look for an old independant home and after another 5+ years, move to your dream home. (I don't know whether we, most of us who are in the GC mess might be in 35 and above age group, have any juice left to do so rather than try to settle down within a couple of years. And one more thing, are these places really worth for spending this much for houses? (I know its a personal choice and lot of factors come in to play...)
3) Move to a more affordable place so that even if there are some hick ups in career or other ups and downs in life, it won't affect the mortage payment (considering ones personal interests and other factors like employment opportunities, climate, diversed community etc etc.) - places like Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Atlanta etc. (feel free to add other cities also).
Please comment/share your thoughts (I am agreeing there may be slight variation in above price ranges) and really sorry if we discussed this in any other threads....
Thanks,
B+ve
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.
for example, in Bay Area, CA - places which has good school districts and neighbourhoods like Cupertino, Fremont, Redwood shores etc., (please add other good places also...) - the medium home price of a new independant home (anywhere from 1500 to 3000 sq.feet) will be atleast in the price range of $700000 - 2+ Millions.
Other options are :
1) Moving to the outskirts, around 40 or 50+ miles - places like San Ramon, Gilroy etc. (remember commute will be too hectic...). In these places also, the above mentioned homes will cost $450000 and up.
2) Go with an old condo/town home (in Bay Area, usually an old house is 25+ years YOUNG!!!) and after 5+ years look for an old independant home and after another 5+ years, move to your dream home. (I don't know whether we, most of us who are in the GC mess might be in 35 and above age group, have any juice left to do so rather than try to settle down within a couple of years. And one more thing, are these places really worth for spending this much for houses? (I know its a personal choice and lot of factors come in to play...)
3) Move to a more affordable place so that even if there are some hick ups in career or other ups and downs in life, it won't affect the mortage payment (considering ones personal interests and other factors like employment opportunities, climate, diversed community etc etc.) - places like Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Atlanta etc. (feel free to add other cities also).
Please comment/share your thoughts (I am agreeing there may be slight variation in above price ranges) and really sorry if we discussed this in any other threads....
Thanks,
B+ve
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.