pitha
10-01 04:32 PM
I was thinking of buying a car but I have decided to hold off on it untill the presidentials elections are over. If obama is elected president I will not buy the car and will basically go into 100% saving mode because you never know when Obama\Durbin might kick us out. Nobody knows what sort of draconian rules are going to be put in place for EB community by Obama and Durbin. I have no confidence in Obama\Durbin to show any compassion\fairness towards Eb community. There might be hundreds of thousands of people holding off on purchasing a house, car or any big ticket item because of Obama\Durbin cir and there hostility towards Eb community. Hope I am proven wrong but I have not heard a single positive thing out of obama regarding EB community. Even when he was specifically asked about the green card delays faced by EB community he gave a evasive reply. He is always boasting about support for legal immigartion i.e family based immigration and not eb. I am not a obama hater nor a mcccain supporter but just a worried EB guy worried about his bleak future with Durbin lead cir.
wallpaper pictures desktop wallpaper
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
vdlrao
07-13 09:48 AM
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Hi Pani, people like you could change the system. You have done really a nice job.
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Hi Pani, people like you could change the system. You have done really a nice job.
2011 hot desktop wallpaper nature
LostInGCProcess
01-07 05:28 PM
Anyway, i'll sign off and i won't post any more message in this thread again.
On page 8 or 9 you said you would not post any more message and still you continue to post !!!! Don't say anything that you can't keep up with.
On page 8 or 9 you said you would not post any more message and still you continue to post !!!! Don't say anything that you can't keep up with.
more...
gcwait2007
06-26 11:31 PM
Pandey ji / Valid IV
o.k..I will explain it slowly ..I can understand that those who are homeowners will justify their home purchase. some maybe in denial and have their head in sand.
honestly, few months back, even I would have purchased a house . if I had, I would still admit -- that home is not necessarily good investment but a place to stay. even after I buy, I would still say that renting in an apartment has its advantages. here are 2 links in english.
Why rent? To get richer - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/WhyRentToGetRicher.aspx)
Why Your Mortgage Won't Make You Rich - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124352291846962809.html)
--------------
now you need to read this carefully else you won't understand what the authors are trying to say ..since it is bit unclear but it has good points (not trying to make fun here :)) ..do read since they are superb articles
but here is even simpler explanation and hopefully that will explain what I am trying to say ..if you still don't understand ..u will need to find someone else to explain.
first renting gives you flexibility ...so say, u get better job offer or lose job - you don't lose lot of money compared to house if you have to move.
for 250K house, you pay around 300 property tax, 60 HOA fees, 150 - 200 in maintenance (recurring like lawn plus once in long term like roof, painting etc) , 100 - 150 extra in utilities. you pay downpayment of 50 k ..if you were to invest that money in better investments (mutual funds, stocks, high CDs. bonds) ..you would make 250 - 300 per month. plus add fees when you have to sell the house, insurance, termite protection etc etc ..
plus in many cases, you end up buying a house further away than if you were to rent (since many want brand new house ) ..this means extra 250 - 300 in gas + vehicle degradation per month.
(ALSO SAY U WERE IN MICHIGAN OR IN CALIFORtNIA -- you could get away from the state after making money easily if you were renting. .home means you could end up stuck there).
I agree in apartment you get less space and hence I mentioned - u need to ask - do you really need extra space at this time in life - if yes, then home is better. (but renting a home is even better esp if prices are still falling in your area in this case).
btw - as of now rents are going down -- you just need to negotiate.
now you don't get the money back in rents..but neither do you get money paid in the expenses listed above.
(in other words - you don't get money back that you pay in rent yr apt BUT you get a place to stay ..this is not India where you can sleep on foot path - so you need a place. apartment property owner will make a small profit - but that is the system)
before you jump - house is good when it appreciates by atleast 1 -2 percent above inflation and I am not saying that you should never buy a house.
there are many other points and I will post it in IV WIKI ...and I hope this helps newcomers ...this is my last personal post ...and do watch the movie :) ..once again I did mention in plain english that it is worst case scenario (the movie "pacific heights")..but best case scenario is not good either if you are a landlord with property in US while you are in India (or vice versa).
hope that answers your question ..please note: the above is for normal cases ..but if you get a good deal or short sale or foreclosed home for 50K --- then yes, buying makes sense !!
Hello Hiralalji,
Excellent post. Salute to you!
Thank you once again
o.k..I will explain it slowly ..I can understand that those who are homeowners will justify their home purchase. some maybe in denial and have their head in sand.
honestly, few months back, even I would have purchased a house . if I had, I would still admit -- that home is not necessarily good investment but a place to stay. even after I buy, I would still say that renting in an apartment has its advantages. here are 2 links in english.
Why rent? To get richer - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/WhyRentToGetRicher.aspx)
Why Your Mortgage Won't Make You Rich - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124352291846962809.html)
--------------
now you need to read this carefully else you won't understand what the authors are trying to say ..since it is bit unclear but it has good points (not trying to make fun here :)) ..do read since they are superb articles
but here is even simpler explanation and hopefully that will explain what I am trying to say ..if you still don't understand ..u will need to find someone else to explain.
first renting gives you flexibility ...so say, u get better job offer or lose job - you don't lose lot of money compared to house if you have to move.
for 250K house, you pay around 300 property tax, 60 HOA fees, 150 - 200 in maintenance (recurring like lawn plus once in long term like roof, painting etc) , 100 - 150 extra in utilities. you pay downpayment of 50 k ..if you were to invest that money in better investments (mutual funds, stocks, high CDs. bonds) ..you would make 250 - 300 per month. plus add fees when you have to sell the house, insurance, termite protection etc etc ..
plus in many cases, you end up buying a house further away than if you were to rent (since many want brand new house ) ..this means extra 250 - 300 in gas + vehicle degradation per month.
(ALSO SAY U WERE IN MICHIGAN OR IN CALIFORtNIA -- you could get away from the state after making money easily if you were renting. .home means you could end up stuck there).
I agree in apartment you get less space and hence I mentioned - u need to ask - do you really need extra space at this time in life - if yes, then home is better. (but renting a home is even better esp if prices are still falling in your area in this case).
btw - as of now rents are going down -- you just need to negotiate.
now you don't get the money back in rents..but neither do you get money paid in the expenses listed above.
(in other words - you don't get money back that you pay in rent yr apt BUT you get a place to stay ..this is not India where you can sleep on foot path - so you need a place. apartment property owner will make a small profit - but that is the system)
before you jump - house is good when it appreciates by atleast 1 -2 percent above inflation and I am not saying that you should never buy a house.
there are many other points and I will post it in IV WIKI ...and I hope this helps newcomers ...this is my last personal post ...and do watch the movie :) ..once again I did mention in plain english that it is worst case scenario (the movie "pacific heights")..but best case scenario is not good either if you are a landlord with property in US while you are in India (or vice versa).
hope that answers your question ..please note: the above is for normal cases ..but if you get a good deal or short sale or foreclosed home for 50K --- then yes, buying makes sense !!
Hello Hiralalji,
Excellent post. Salute to you!
Thank you once again
checklaw
10-02 01:10 PM
he for now atleast, seems slightly different then regular politicians that we know of...and considering the consequences of present financial crisis would most likely be the next President coming Nov..
but to us, the prospective permanent immigrants, this comes with a measure of fear knowing he might listen and act only to staunch anti-legal-immigration policy advisors in his rank who seem to wield substantial influence on such matters.
checklaw
but to us, the prospective permanent immigrants, this comes with a measure of fear knowing he might listen and act only to staunch anti-legal-immigration policy advisors in his rank who seem to wield substantial influence on such matters.
checklaw
more...
hpandey
06-26 10:50 AM
LOL. Why dont you throw in Armageddon, Knowing and Deep Impact. Those are also valid points since thats what can happen to the earth tommorow or the day after.
Investment carries risk. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. I have lost money on other investments before, but that is what makes u grow smarter. You fall and you get back up and you know better the next time round.
If you spend the rest of your life renting, the risk is 100%—you end up with nothing. I will take my chances investing my money in buying a home because its certainly better than losing 100%.
:D Good points - ... Mr Hiralal seems to be digging up the worst case scenarios from everywhere in the media and now he has even turned to the movies . I watched Pacific Heights fifteen years back and Hiralal should realize that it was about a psycho and made for entertainment. Not to discourage people to rent .
There are plenty of movies on bigger worst case scenarios like ValidIV mentions above but Hiralal please remember movies are made for entertainment ( except some movies of course ).
Investment carries risk. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. I have lost money on other investments before, but that is what makes u grow smarter. You fall and you get back up and you know better the next time round.
If you spend the rest of your life renting, the risk is 100%—you end up with nothing. I will take my chances investing my money in buying a home because its certainly better than losing 100%.
:D Good points - ... Mr Hiralal seems to be digging up the worst case scenarios from everywhere in the media and now he has even turned to the movies . I watched Pacific Heights fifteen years back and Hiralal should realize that it was about a psycho and made for entertainment. Not to discourage people to rent .
There are plenty of movies on bigger worst case scenarios like ValidIV mentions above but Hiralal please remember movies are made for entertainment ( except some movies of course ).
2010 images 3d nature wallpaper hd. desktop wallpaper hd nature. wallpaper Hd
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
more...
Macaca
04-03 08:22 AM
Soliciting for Good Citizens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201749_2.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.
Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.
But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.
The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):
"Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."
"Coffee breaks: We'll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area."
"Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."
"Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."
None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.
Oh.
Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.
Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.
But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.
The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):
"Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."
"Coffee breaks: We'll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area."
"Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."
"Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."
None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.
Oh.
hair Desktop Backgrounds Nature Hd.
GotGC??
04-07 08:48 PM
Regardless of the various previous comments of whether this bill will or will not make it, I don't care to wait to find out.
I will do whatever I can do to help a concerted effort to nip this bill in the bud. Give me my marching orders.
What we have to do
1.) This bill is discriminatory and puts unworkable restrictions on H-1B program. Please join Immigration Voice to oppose this bill in its current form.
2.) Join Immigration Voice's efforts to oppose the bill S.1035 and educate the lawmakers to pass meaningful comprehensive immigration reform containing the provisions to end the massive employment based green card backlog.
3.) If you are employee, employer or a lawyer, please take this threat very seriously and inform your organization, employer, colleagues, friends or anybody whom you feel should know about this discriminatory bill. Please request everybody to visit www.ImmigrationVoice.org (http://www.ImmigrationVoice.org) frequently for the latest action items and updates.
4.) Please contribute to Immigration Voice TODAY and please send out SOS message to you friends, colleagues and employers to contribute and support Immigration Voice. We have very limited resources and desperately need everybody�s support.
I will do whatever I can do to help a concerted effort to nip this bill in the bud. Give me my marching orders.
What we have to do
1.) This bill is discriminatory and puts unworkable restrictions on H-1B program. Please join Immigration Voice to oppose this bill in its current form.
2.) Join Immigration Voice's efforts to oppose the bill S.1035 and educate the lawmakers to pass meaningful comprehensive immigration reform containing the provisions to end the massive employment based green card backlog.
3.) If you are employee, employer or a lawyer, please take this threat very seriously and inform your organization, employer, colleagues, friends or anybody whom you feel should know about this discriminatory bill. Please request everybody to visit www.ImmigrationVoice.org (http://www.ImmigrationVoice.org) frequently for the latest action items and updates.
4.) Please contribute to Immigration Voice TODAY and please send out SOS message to you friends, colleagues and employers to contribute and support Immigration Voice. We have very limited resources and desperately need everybody�s support.
more...
wellwishergc
07-11 12:12 PM
This is a very good question that even I had - Does using AC21 to change jobs lead to more scrutiny? Please advise!
My wife (secondary applicant on I-485) started job 1.5 months after her H4 to H1 approval. She needed to wait for SSN and that took 1.5 months. Will that create any issue? I am planning to use AC21 to change job. Will that result in extra scrutiny?
My wife (secondary applicant on I-485) started job 1.5 months after her H4 to H1 approval. She needed to wait for SSN and that took 1.5 months. Will that create any issue? I am planning to use AC21 to change job. Will that result in extra scrutiny?
hot Wallpapers For Desktop Nature
unitednations
07-10 01:42 PM
Hello United Nations..
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
No; you don't have to have a valid visa in your passport to file the 485. You are just supposed to be in non immigrant status (ie., f1, f2, h1, h4, etc.). Your I-94 card if expired; should not have expired more then six months prior to filing 485.
Auto revalidation is one of the neatest little escapes to gettting back into proper status. Essentially; when entering into usa; one needs a valid visa to enter. However; auto revalidation is when a person goes to Canada or Mexico; stays less then 30 days; doesn't try to visit another country; doesn't attempt to go for visa stamping; has a valid/unexpired I-94 card (this also means unexpired I-94 card on a notice of action) then you can re-enter usa without a valid and unexpired visa.
This concept is actually very difficult for people to believe that if their visa is expired but they have a valid i-94 card that they can go to canada and re-enter usa without a visa. since you are resetting your date of last entry by going out and coming back in then it helps greatly in using 245k since you have reset the date of your last entry into usa.
Without auto revalidation; if you wanted to go out and come back in and take advantage of 245k then you would have to go for visa stamping in order to be allowed back in. However; consulate can check back to your earliest entry into usa and ask for paystubs/w2's as far back as they want (sometiemes they will ask you for all the way back). If they don't like what they see then they may not approve the visa and you are stuck.
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
No; you don't have to have a valid visa in your passport to file the 485. You are just supposed to be in non immigrant status (ie., f1, f2, h1, h4, etc.). Your I-94 card if expired; should not have expired more then six months prior to filing 485.
Auto revalidation is one of the neatest little escapes to gettting back into proper status. Essentially; when entering into usa; one needs a valid visa to enter. However; auto revalidation is when a person goes to Canada or Mexico; stays less then 30 days; doesn't try to visit another country; doesn't attempt to go for visa stamping; has a valid/unexpired I-94 card (this also means unexpired I-94 card on a notice of action) then you can re-enter usa without a valid and unexpired visa.
This concept is actually very difficult for people to believe that if their visa is expired but they have a valid i-94 card that they can go to canada and re-enter usa without a visa. since you are resetting your date of last entry by going out and coming back in then it helps greatly in using 245k since you have reset the date of your last entry into usa.
Without auto revalidation; if you wanted to go out and come back in and take advantage of 245k then you would have to go for visa stamping in order to be allowed back in. However; consulate can check back to your earliest entry into usa and ask for paystubs/w2's as far back as they want (sometiemes they will ask you for all the way back). If they don't like what they see then they may not approve the visa and you are stuck.
more...
house Nature HD Beautiful Wallpaper
Administrator2
04-06 09:03 PM
This bill seems to require a labor certification like process for every H1B extension. All of us who have gone through labor certification know how painful the initial data collection is when it comes to proving unavailability of US workers. How many employers will want to or be able to get a labor certification like process done for every H1 extension?
Anti-H1B lobby wants to make the system so difficult that it will be impossible to complete all the requirements. Their strategy is, if they cannot eliminate H-1B program, they will make in non-workable. Also, this bill was in the making for more than two years. They are timing their articles in the press with this bill because of a reason. Don't simply reject it by saying that "this is not going to pass". Taking this bill lightly will be a mistake.
Please inform your friends, colleagues and employer about this very serious problem.
Anti-H1B lobby wants to make the system so difficult that it will be impossible to complete all the requirements. Their strategy is, if they cannot eliminate H-1B program, they will make in non-workable. Also, this bill was in the making for more than two years. They are timing their articles in the press with this bill because of a reason. Don't simply reject it by saying that "this is not going to pass". Taking this bill lightly will be a mistake.
Please inform your friends, colleagues and employer about this very serious problem.
tattoo 111 Amazing Nature HD
smisachu
01-04 02:10 PM
So you should not have any problem if India kills a few of your cockroaches, right? In fact India will be doing a favour to you, since you are undble to kill the roaches in your house, India will do it for you..This has been my point all along in this thread. India should conduct surgical strikes and "clean" regions of Pakistan where these terrorists eminate from. Pakistan should in fact open its borders and aid Indian troops in cleaning up its mess.
India is not interested in occupying Pakistan nor is it interested in destroying it. Stop being paranoid, we only want the roaches killed.
And for your parallel of 9/11, 3K Americans were killed by 19 "Middle eastern" Muslims- not South Asians. The problem of terrorism ranges from Egypt in the west to Pakistan in the east. It does not bring India into play and the whole world is aware of this. India has been a victim of terrorism for the last 60 years.
"What apology?
I am not responsible for the actions of those people. Imagine if after 9/11, an American asked you to apologize for the actions of the 19 'Brown men' (I am assuming here that you are a south asian male) who killed 3000 Americans, how silly do you think that situation would be. If cockroaches from my house take a dump in your kitchen, don't ask me to apologize for that.[/QUOTE]"
India is not interested in occupying Pakistan nor is it interested in destroying it. Stop being paranoid, we only want the roaches killed.
And for your parallel of 9/11, 3K Americans were killed by 19 "Middle eastern" Muslims- not South Asians. The problem of terrorism ranges from Egypt in the west to Pakistan in the east. It does not bring India into play and the whole world is aware of this. India has been a victim of terrorism for the last 60 years.
"What apology?
I am not responsible for the actions of those people. Imagine if after 9/11, an American asked you to apologize for the actions of the 19 'Brown men' (I am assuming here that you are a south asian male) who killed 3000 Americans, how silly do you think that situation would be. If cockroaches from my house take a dump in your kitchen, don't ask me to apologize for that.[/QUOTE]"
more...
pictures HD DESKTOP WALLPAPERS NATURE
punjabi
08-05 01:50 PM
A doctor had just finished a physical well-check session with one of his patients, when he realized he got a bit carried away with the procedure. He was resting afterwards and was feeling a bit guilty because he thought it wasn't really ethical to do it with one of his patients. However, a little voice in his head said "Lots of other doctors have done it with their patients so its not like you're the first". This made the doctor feel a little bit better until still another voice in his head said, " but they probably weren't veterinarians".
dresses 3d wallpapers for desktop hd.
xyzgc
12-22 11:31 PM
Though I strongly disagreed with some points made by the initial poster, some of your points look like they are out of the VHP's handy book. Muslims do have a slightly higher fertility rate, this is falling fast and there is only a slight difference between hindus and muslims. Partly it has to do with religion but there are various other reasons including higer female numbers and better mortality rate.
See article. http://signal.nationalinterest.in/archives/madhu/63
Another article(slightly older): http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/11/10/stories/2002111000610300.htm
That's very positive news. Its not like every muslim has ten wives and produces 50 children.And for that matter, every Hindu widow doesn't commit sati.
I don't know whether VHP has a hand book. At least, I have not read it even if there is one. If they have it and they have expressed similar thoughts, there is nothing I can do about it.
There are several issues in Indian society. We are not denying it.
What we are demanding is that Pakistan should stop sponsoring terrorism. Not only that the nation must take active steps to root it out instead of simply disowning the terrorists. That's all.
See article. http://signal.nationalinterest.in/archives/madhu/63
Another article(slightly older): http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/11/10/stories/2002111000610300.htm
That's very positive news. Its not like every muslim has ten wives and produces 50 children.And for that matter, every Hindu widow doesn't commit sati.
I don't know whether VHP has a hand book. At least, I have not read it even if there is one. If they have it and they have expressed similar thoughts, there is nothing I can do about it.
There are several issues in Indian society. We are not denying it.
What we are demanding is that Pakistan should stop sponsoring terrorism. Not only that the nation must take active steps to root it out instead of simply disowning the terrorists. That's all.
more...
makeup desktop wallpaper nature hd.
immique
07-14 10:01 PM
For all those people who are misguiding the EB3 members on the forum- please stop playing with people's hopes and stop this nonsense about petition for spillover from EB1 to EB3. this is a foolish arguement and will not work. Do you think USCIS will give preference to EB2 over EB1? hell no. similarly, EB3 will not get any spill over visas unless EB2 is current. EB preferences are are established for a reason to give preference to better qualified individuals that US thinks are much needed. similarly family based preferences are established to give preference to dependents/relatives of US Citizens over other categories. Can you imagine second or third preference Family based category getting preference over the first preference category in Family based applications? No way this is going to happen.
Moreover after taking heat from Congress for wrongly interpreting the EB laws and unfairly giving visas to EB3 last year while EB2 is still retrogressed, do you really think that USCIS/DOS will make the same mistake again? some of the people seem to be wandering in a fool's paradise. this whole petition drama has caused rifts among the EB immigrant community for no good reason. the only way for EB3 to move forward is by EB2 becoming current and it may happen next year.
I can tell you for sure what kind of results this petition will produce.
1. it will not poduce any spillover to EB3 at all.
2. it will definitely attract more scrutiny towards EB2 from USCIS as it will try to establish clear distinction between EB2 and EB3 so that people are not confused between the categories thinking that they also qualify for EB2 as mentioned in the petition. USCIS may start strictly implementing "exceptional ability/ advanced degree/ Professional Occupation" part of the EB2 definition and start questioning the 5 year experience that many EB3 have used to convert to EB2. This will result in more problems for EB3 to EB2 conversions who have already filed and for future filings and will make it easier for people with Advanced degrees. This will help USCIS to make EB2 current quickly by greatly decreasing the number of applications in EB2 and may be then use the spill over to EB3.
After reading all this if people are still not convinced about my arguement, then go ahead and send in your petitions to whom ever you want to. As I said above, it will do more harm to EB3 than any good as it will potentially make it impossible for any future EB3 to EB2 conversions. Good luck in your effort.
Moreover after taking heat from Congress for wrongly interpreting the EB laws and unfairly giving visas to EB3 last year while EB2 is still retrogressed, do you really think that USCIS/DOS will make the same mistake again? some of the people seem to be wandering in a fool's paradise. this whole petition drama has caused rifts among the EB immigrant community for no good reason. the only way for EB3 to move forward is by EB2 becoming current and it may happen next year.
I can tell you for sure what kind of results this petition will produce.
1. it will not poduce any spillover to EB3 at all.
2. it will definitely attract more scrutiny towards EB2 from USCIS as it will try to establish clear distinction between EB2 and EB3 so that people are not confused between the categories thinking that they also qualify for EB2 as mentioned in the petition. USCIS may start strictly implementing "exceptional ability/ advanced degree/ Professional Occupation" part of the EB2 definition and start questioning the 5 year experience that many EB3 have used to convert to EB2. This will result in more problems for EB3 to EB2 conversions who have already filed and for future filings and will make it easier for people with Advanced degrees. This will help USCIS to make EB2 current quickly by greatly decreasing the number of applications in EB2 and may be then use the spill over to EB3.
After reading all this if people are still not convinced about my arguement, then go ahead and send in your petitions to whom ever you want to. As I said above, it will do more harm to EB3 than any good as it will potentially make it impossible for any future EB3 to EB2 conversions. Good luck in your effort.
girlfriend wallpaper nature hd.
desi3933
08-06 10:47 AM
I agree with "singhsa".
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
....
.....
Just FYI..
One can NOT claim PD recapture based on spouse's earlier PD.
Person can claim earlier PD only based on his/her earlier approved I-140.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
....
.....
Just FYI..
One can NOT claim PD recapture based on spouse's earlier PD.
Person can claim earlier PD only based on his/her earlier approved I-140.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
hairstyles Nature HD Wallpapers Nature HD
pappu
07-13 08:28 AM
I commend the initiative. But I see a few issues with it:
You are complaining to DOS about USCIS and DOL. That will not work. Every agency has a specific role
You are complaining to the official who sets visa dates. He has no authority to give relief just because some applicant/s are asking for it. He has to follow the rule every month and his responsibility is only to set the dates based on the statistics received from USCIS. This official has a very specific and limited role.
The reasons are not compelling enough. You cannot just say you are waiting long enough and thus your date should become current. Rules cannot be changed just for that reason.
If economy was down in 2001- 2003 and you were asked to file in EB3 and people in Perm could file in EB2 is your strongest reason, it may not work in your favor. Because by law you can file again and convert to EB2 and port your date. DOL and USCIS does not stop you from doing that.
If you are qualified for EB2 but your attorney and employer filed in EB3, then it is not a fault of USCIS/DOL/DOS. You must talk to the company and the lawyer for it. If the company or the lawyer has broken any rule or employer has exploited you, then the letter should be complain to the appropriate authority about them.
Please also note that labor is filed based on the degree and experience requirement of the job. By law if the requirement is only undergraduate degree for the job, the employer cannot file in EB2 just because the applicant has a masters degree or more experience than needed. So you cannot really put this arguement here because it will be against the rules.
So I personally do not think this idea will work.
While this mess is depressing for EB3 folks, we need to have a more compelling argument, determined membership and effective plan to get things changed.
The root cause of the problem is limited greencard quota for EB3. And the solution is to get recapture, get rid of country limits, STEM exemption. Any single relief itself will be huge for all of us. With 179 phone calls and $16656 collected in last 3 months, I do not see that happening. It will need a far more bigger and determined effort. Such amount can be spent on full scale lobbying in just one month. 179 phone calls are nothing if we have to make a compelling case for ourselves.
You are complaining to DOS about USCIS and DOL. That will not work. Every agency has a specific role
You are complaining to the official who sets visa dates. He has no authority to give relief just because some applicant/s are asking for it. He has to follow the rule every month and his responsibility is only to set the dates based on the statistics received from USCIS. This official has a very specific and limited role.
The reasons are not compelling enough. You cannot just say you are waiting long enough and thus your date should become current. Rules cannot be changed just for that reason.
If economy was down in 2001- 2003 and you were asked to file in EB3 and people in Perm could file in EB2 is your strongest reason, it may not work in your favor. Because by law you can file again and convert to EB2 and port your date. DOL and USCIS does not stop you from doing that.
If you are qualified for EB2 but your attorney and employer filed in EB3, then it is not a fault of USCIS/DOL/DOS. You must talk to the company and the lawyer for it. If the company or the lawyer has broken any rule or employer has exploited you, then the letter should be complain to the appropriate authority about them.
Please also note that labor is filed based on the degree and experience requirement of the job. By law if the requirement is only undergraduate degree for the job, the employer cannot file in EB2 just because the applicant has a masters degree or more experience than needed. So you cannot really put this arguement here because it will be against the rules.
So I personally do not think this idea will work.
While this mess is depressing for EB3 folks, we need to have a more compelling argument, determined membership and effective plan to get things changed.
The root cause of the problem is limited greencard quota for EB3. And the solution is to get recapture, get rid of country limits, STEM exemption. Any single relief itself will be huge for all of us. With 179 phone calls and $16656 collected in last 3 months, I do not see that happening. It will need a far more bigger and determined effort. Such amount can be spent on full scale lobbying in just one month. 179 phone calls are nothing if we have to make a compelling case for ourselves.
alisa
01-03 01:00 AM
on the other hand ..Alisa ..don't you think Pakistan should atleast handover some of the terrorists who are wanted particularly the MF/SF bastard Dawood ?
basically u cannot have cake and eat it too ..if pak wants good relations/goodwill with India then they should take some action
Screw Dawood Ibrahim. He is the past.
What is important right now is to get hold of the masterminds of Bombay in a transparent and credible manner. That would be in the long term self-interest of Pakistan (and India, and the world).
basically u cannot have cake and eat it too ..if pak wants good relations/goodwill with India then they should take some action
Screw Dawood Ibrahim. He is the past.
What is important right now is to get hold of the masterminds of Bombay in a transparent and credible manner. That would be in the long term self-interest of Pakistan (and India, and the world).
ns007
07-08 06:43 PM
I am of the opinion that what happened in june 2007 actually helped greatly the oversubscribed countries in probably advancing the dates for next fiscal year as many people got approved who probably shouldn't have.
I agree with you. I am also of the opinion that July Fiasco has actually helped India and China (oversubscribed countries). USCIS might have approved tons of EB2 and EB3 (India and China) applications to use those 60,000 visa numbers. So, India and China might have got a big pie of the 140,000 EB visas.
With that said I also felt the pain as other members did due to the July bulletin fiasco.
I agree with you. I am also of the opinion that July Fiasco has actually helped India and China (oversubscribed countries). USCIS might have approved tons of EB2 and EB3 (India and China) applications to use those 60,000 visa numbers. So, India and China might have got a big pie of the 140,000 EB visas.
With that said I also felt the pain as other members did due to the July bulletin fiasco.
No comments:
Post a Comment