ita
09-29 10:40 PM
My PD is current for almost a year and Name check is cleared in July 2008.
No soft or hard LUD's sofar. :mad:
Chris- how did you find out your NC has been cleared?
Thank you.
No soft or hard LUD's sofar. :mad:
Chris- how did you find out your NC has been cleared?
Thank you.
wallpaper Labels: funny bikes
saimrathi
07-09 01:03 PM
Would you please elaborate if the flower campaign has hit any mainstream media like CNN, Fox etc?? Or just the TOI and other small covers? I just want to know how famous this has become.. Thanks.
The flower campaign is apparently working as far as the attention the issue is getting.
If we can manage to send at least 500-700 flowers to USCIS, that will create the kind of attention we want and it will bring the issue of retrogression again on the forefront in Washington DC.
PLEASE PLEASE send the flowers to USCIS director Emilio Gonzalez. For details on sending, address and the message on the message card, read this thread :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6191
Thanks.
The flower campaign is apparently working as far as the attention the issue is getting.
If we can manage to send at least 500-700 flowers to USCIS, that will create the kind of attention we want and it will bring the issue of retrogression again on the forefront in Washington DC.
PLEASE PLEASE send the flowers to USCIS director Emilio Gonzalez. For details on sending, address and the message on the message card, read this thread :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6191
Thanks.
chi_shark
10-01 01:54 PM
it depends on the individual hospital... your downside is only your wife getting fired... which might not really happen unless your wife supplies 100 A grade nurses to the directly competing hospital across the street... if she does that, anyway she wont care for the job.... :-) all the best... let us know how it goes...
Hi,
My wife is doing residency using her EAD and she wanted to start a medical staffing company. Would there be any problem from the 'hospitals' since she is working as full time employee or is it depending on the individual hospital contract?
Please help me out if anybody has an idea.
Thanks.
Hi,
My wife is doing residency using her EAD and she wanted to start a medical staffing company. Would there be any problem from the 'hospitals' since she is working as full time employee or is it depending on the individual hospital contract?
Please help me out if anybody has an idea.
Thanks.
2011 Nice Funny Bike
Sree Swathi
04-21 02:30 PM
here is health insurance info...
.com
sevencorners.com
icicilombard.com
hthworldwide.com
.com
sevencorners.com
icicilombard.com
hthworldwide.com
more...
Jayr
08-22 04:18 PM
It DOES matter what your PD is. USCIS apparently does process FIFO according to your Receipt date - BUT ONLY IF YOUR PRIORITY DATE IS CURRENT will you get a visa number assigned (i.e. approval of said greencard).
Thanks! That's helpful... from what you say, sounds like PD is still quite important. RD comes into the picture only after the PD becomes current. However, if a range of PD's are current, then they would sort those by RD and not by PD.
For eg, if they move the dates forward by a year, and Jan 04 and Jan 05 are both now current, a person with PD of Jan 05 but an earlier RD would still get processed prior to an application with PD Jan 04 and a later RD (according to the FIFO principle)...
Thanks! That's helpful... from what you say, sounds like PD is still quite important. RD comes into the picture only after the PD becomes current. However, if a range of PD's are current, then they would sort those by RD and not by PD.
For eg, if they move the dates forward by a year, and Jan 04 and Jan 05 are both now current, a person with PD of Jan 05 but an earlier RD would still get processed prior to an application with PD Jan 04 and a later RD (according to the FIFO principle)...
wahwah
09-14 04:35 PM
here's my explanation why i think retrogression will get worse -
1) USCIS still has not entered all the july and aug. filers. USCIS will have a good idea by Oct or Nov. how many applications are in the pipeline, how many they can approve and what the PD cut off date needs to be?
2) with the number of applications that were filed this it is obvious that ROW will see retrogression in both EB2 and EB3 categories.
And, would you mind explaining why would ROW get affected? If they were current all along, all the ROW candidates must have already filed, even before july fiasco, right? So, just exactly how do they get affected?
Sorry for the outburst, but I sometimes get tired of people just throwing out speculations :eek: as if they are stating facts. So, back up your statement with logic.
1) USCIS still has not entered all the july and aug. filers. USCIS will have a good idea by Oct or Nov. how many applications are in the pipeline, how many they can approve and what the PD cut off date needs to be?
2) with the number of applications that were filed this it is obvious that ROW will see retrogression in both EB2 and EB3 categories.
And, would you mind explaining why would ROW get affected? If they were current all along, all the ROW candidates must have already filed, even before july fiasco, right? So, just exactly how do they get affected?
Sorry for the outburst, but I sometimes get tired of people just throwing out speculations :eek: as if they are stating facts. So, back up your statement with logic.
more...
neel_gump
07-19 03:51 PM
My friend posted his 485 on June 17th and he got a receipt date of July 14th. At this rate, I am thinking I am thinking atleast 3months for July2nd filers..
So, October 2nd-Gandhi Jayanthi (Birthdate) seems to be more realistic..
So, October 2nd-Gandhi Jayanthi (Birthdate) seems to be more realistic..
2010 Funny Bikes/Bikers
reddog
01-27 10:45 PM
It is unlawful for an alien admitted on a non-immigrant visa to own a firearm(with one exception).
So, if you want to own a gun, read on....
The case where this 18 USC 922(g)(5)(B) was mentioned elaborately was United States vs ELRAWY.
And it clearly is re-affirmed what is stated in the law on Unlawful acts(Sec 922) for FIREARMS, that '(g)It shall be unlawful for any person - (5) who, being an alien - (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
The case: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/....04-20123.html (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/448/448.F3d.309.04-20123.html)
The case clearly notes that a person on Adjustment on status remains on the last admitted visa status until the Adjustment of Status is approved. So there is no ambiguity there.
A person even after he has applied for adjustment of status can remain in the country, but for ownership of a gun, he falls back on his visa status.
However, the law clearly states an exception for the person who is an alien that is on a non-immigrant visa - the (y)(2) part:
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas. - (2) Exceptions. - Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that
alien is -
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
Link: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+535+12++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28922%29%29%3ACITE%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+535+12++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28922%29%29%3ACITE%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20)
In short, apply and get a Hunting Licence from the State DNR., take the safety courses and then apply for the State firearm ID.
And, if your licensing authority knows about this exception(hunting) in the law, they will issue you a license.
If not, they will reject your application. If so, You might want to bring this section to their notice.
So, if you want to own a gun, read on....
The case where this 18 USC 922(g)(5)(B) was mentioned elaborately was United States vs ELRAWY.
And it clearly is re-affirmed what is stated in the law on Unlawful acts(Sec 922) for FIREARMS, that '(g)It shall be unlawful for any person - (5) who, being an alien - (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
The case: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/....04-20123.html (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/448/448.F3d.309.04-20123.html)
The case clearly notes that a person on Adjustment on status remains on the last admitted visa status until the Adjustment of Status is approved. So there is no ambiguity there.
A person even after he has applied for adjustment of status can remain in the country, but for ownership of a gun, he falls back on his visa status.
However, the law clearly states an exception for the person who is an alien that is on a non-immigrant visa - the (y)(2) part:
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas. - (2) Exceptions. - Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that
alien is -
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
Link: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+535+12++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28922%29%29%3ACITE%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+535+12++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28922%29%29%3ACITE%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20)
In short, apply and get a Hunting Licence from the State DNR., take the safety courses and then apply for the State firearm ID.
And, if your licensing authority knows about this exception(hunting) in the law, they will issue you a license.
If not, they will reject your application. If so, You might want to bring this section to their notice.
more...
gk_2000
04-19 10:37 AM
Again the same Obama moonwalk show? No thanks. I dont think anybody will buy the ticket
hair funny images of ikes.
Winner
03-26 02:31 PM
Lets find real information. Don't start guessing game (unless you just love the mess you are in). Please contribute on FOIA thread.
Something I notice here and would like to get your opinions..
People who donate their time and money to IV, understand and appreciate the efforts by IV volunteers to fix the broken immigration system do not usually get into this guessing game. Am I wrong?
Something I notice here and would like to get your opinions..
People who donate their time and money to IV, understand and appreciate the efforts by IV volunteers to fix the broken immigration system do not usually get into this guessing game. Am I wrong?
more...
svgupta
05-22 03:12 PM
plz contribute and update your signature as well.
hot Funny Bikes
royus77
08-29 04:51 PM
Folks
I need you guys help how to correct My advance parole document
Wrong valid date printed on form I-131(Advance parole document) .
Date of issue : 10/18/2007
Valid till also : 10/18/2007 instead of 10/18/2008
How can I get correct the Valid till date ?
Thanks in advance.
How fast you found the mistake ? By the time USICS acts on your case the AP will be useless ..better apply for a renewal
I need you guys help how to correct My advance parole document
Wrong valid date printed on form I-131(Advance parole document) .
Date of issue : 10/18/2007
Valid till also : 10/18/2007 instead of 10/18/2008
How can I get correct the Valid till date ?
Thanks in advance.
How fast you found the mistake ? By the time USICS acts on your case the AP will be useless ..better apply for a renewal
more...
house Funny Bikes - Quad Bikes
apnair2002
05-11 03:18 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/washington/11cnd-immig.html
Senate Leaders Expect Immigration Bill Next Week
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save
By DAVID STOUT
Published: May 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 11 � Senate leaders said today that they had broken a political stalemate and would bring to the floor next week an immigration bill that could put millions of illegals on the road to eventual American citizenship.
An agreement reached today by Senators Bill Frist of Tennessee and Harry Reid of Nevada, the Republican majority and Democratic minority leaders, ends an impasse that has stalled action in the Senate for weeks while immigrants and their advocates have been holding huge demonstrations across the country.
The deal does not mean that a bill will emerge from Congress soon. But it is significant that the Senate leaders agree to move forward, because the chamber operates under peculiar rules and traditions that can bury legislation indefinitely. Mr. Frist and Mr. Reid said they hope to schedule a vote before Memorial Day.
Even if the Senate passes an immigration bill, it would have to be reconciled with a bill enacted in December by the House. That bill generally emphasizes border security rather than attainment of citizenship, so negotiations between Senate and House would probably be long and heated.
"What the Democratic leader and I have laid out is a way to get on to this bill, and as you can tell, both of us are working in very good faith on the various issues that have been raised on the floor," Mr. Frist said.
"I welcome the return of the immigration bill to the Senate floor," Mr. Reid said. "America's immigration system is broken, and our national security depends on Republicans and Democrats finding common ground to fix it. The assurances I have received from Senator Frist make me hopeful we can finally move forward on real comprehensive reform."
The leaders' comments indicated that they had resolved the issue that had kept them apart: how many amendments to consider, and how much time to devote to them.
"I didn't get everything that I wanted," said Mr. Reid, who blocked votes on amendments weeks ago, saying they were intended to gut the legislation. "I think the majority leader didn't get everything he wanted."
Mr. Frist said there would be "a considerable number of amendments debated and voted on each day," and that they would be handled "in an efficient way."
Until partisan bickering sidetracked legislation in the Senate in early April, the chamber was working on a package that offered opportunities for eventual citizenship, a guest worker program for some immigrants and measures to enhance border security. The tougher House ill focuses on border security and would crack down on illegal immigrants and those who employ them.
Mr. Frist said 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats will negotiate with House members once the Senate passes an immigration bill. Seven of the Republicans and five of the Democrats will come from the Judiciary Committee, with the remaining negotiators to be picked by Mr. Frist and Mr. Reid.
President Bush has said he favors legislation that would enable immigrants to become citizens, but only after they meet strict standards. He has said repeatedly that he does not favor "amnesty," a word that is anathema to many conservatives. "We congratulate the Senate on reaching agreement, and we look forward to passage of a bill prior to Memorial Day," Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, told The Associated Press.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, called the agreement announced today "a major step forward in our fight for tough but fair immigration reform."
"Business and labor, Democrats and Republicans, religious leaders and the American people strongly support our plan to strengthen our borders, provide a path to earned citizenship for those undocumented workers who are here and put in place a realistic guest worker program for the future," Mr. Kennedy said.
But quick passage is by no means assured, given the complexity of the immigration debate, the emotion it stirs and the approaching elections. Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, leader of the House Republican majority, said in late April that he opposed the emerging Senate legislation and its emphasis on citizenship attainment. "I don't think that would be supported by the American people," he said.
But the accord announced by Mr. Frist and Mr. Reid apparently means that immigration legislation will not sink out of sight in "the procedural quagmire that the Senate is," as Mr. Reid put it recently.
Senate Leaders Expect Immigration Bill Next Week
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save
By DAVID STOUT
Published: May 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 11 � Senate leaders said today that they had broken a political stalemate and would bring to the floor next week an immigration bill that could put millions of illegals on the road to eventual American citizenship.
An agreement reached today by Senators Bill Frist of Tennessee and Harry Reid of Nevada, the Republican majority and Democratic minority leaders, ends an impasse that has stalled action in the Senate for weeks while immigrants and their advocates have been holding huge demonstrations across the country.
The deal does not mean that a bill will emerge from Congress soon. But it is significant that the Senate leaders agree to move forward, because the chamber operates under peculiar rules and traditions that can bury legislation indefinitely. Mr. Frist and Mr. Reid said they hope to schedule a vote before Memorial Day.
Even if the Senate passes an immigration bill, it would have to be reconciled with a bill enacted in December by the House. That bill generally emphasizes border security rather than attainment of citizenship, so negotiations between Senate and House would probably be long and heated.
"What the Democratic leader and I have laid out is a way to get on to this bill, and as you can tell, both of us are working in very good faith on the various issues that have been raised on the floor," Mr. Frist said.
"I welcome the return of the immigration bill to the Senate floor," Mr. Reid said. "America's immigration system is broken, and our national security depends on Republicans and Democrats finding common ground to fix it. The assurances I have received from Senator Frist make me hopeful we can finally move forward on real comprehensive reform."
The leaders' comments indicated that they had resolved the issue that had kept them apart: how many amendments to consider, and how much time to devote to them.
"I didn't get everything that I wanted," said Mr. Reid, who blocked votes on amendments weeks ago, saying they were intended to gut the legislation. "I think the majority leader didn't get everything he wanted."
Mr. Frist said there would be "a considerable number of amendments debated and voted on each day," and that they would be handled "in an efficient way."
Until partisan bickering sidetracked legislation in the Senate in early April, the chamber was working on a package that offered opportunities for eventual citizenship, a guest worker program for some immigrants and measures to enhance border security. The tougher House ill focuses on border security and would crack down on illegal immigrants and those who employ them.
Mr. Frist said 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats will negotiate with House members once the Senate passes an immigration bill. Seven of the Republicans and five of the Democrats will come from the Judiciary Committee, with the remaining negotiators to be picked by Mr. Frist and Mr. Reid.
President Bush has said he favors legislation that would enable immigrants to become citizens, but only after they meet strict standards. He has said repeatedly that he does not favor "amnesty," a word that is anathema to many conservatives. "We congratulate the Senate on reaching agreement, and we look forward to passage of a bill prior to Memorial Day," Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, told The Associated Press.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, called the agreement announced today "a major step forward in our fight for tough but fair immigration reform."
"Business and labor, Democrats and Republicans, religious leaders and the American people strongly support our plan to strengthen our borders, provide a path to earned citizenship for those undocumented workers who are here and put in place a realistic guest worker program for the future," Mr. Kennedy said.
But quick passage is by no means assured, given the complexity of the immigration debate, the emotion it stirs and the approaching elections. Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, leader of the House Republican majority, said in late April that he opposed the emerging Senate legislation and its emphasis on citizenship attainment. "I don't think that would be supported by the American people," he said.
But the accord announced by Mr. Frist and Mr. Reid apparently means that immigration legislation will not sink out of sight in "the procedural quagmire that the Senate is," as Mr. Reid put it recently.
tattoo Funny and Bizarre Bicycles
knowDOL
08-23 09:36 AM
Also, this is useful for Priority Date portability, Priority Date is all your once your I-140 is aproved and you need to submit the copy with your next I-140 to use the old Priority Date, in this case also, it very useful if the employer does not share this info, and if we can get it from USCIS, we are not at the mercy of Employer anymore.
If you are seeking your i-140 for portability reasons, this means that you have already submitted I-485.
Since that is the case, then who cares if the employer will or will not revoke the I-140: IT IS STILL VIABLE for AC21 portability regardless of employer's actions.
If you are seeking your i-140 for portability reasons, this means that you have already submitted I-485.
Since that is the case, then who cares if the employer will or will not revoke the I-140: IT IS STILL VIABLE for AC21 portability regardless of employer's actions.
more...
pictures of crazy and funny bikes .
centaur
10-05 09:04 PM
AND PAY THE SAME TAXES AND SOCIAL SECURITY AS ANY AMERICAN
I agree, I was so upset when I read it... Thank you Logiclife for bringing that to our notice.
I just wrote an email to the editors with the email address provided by walking_dude. My email says this:
Dear Editor
You mention in an article dated today that "HIGH-TECH EMPLOYERS get lift from House Republican letter to Speaker Pelosi urging passage of immigration bill to help "attract and retain" high-skilled workers". And in the same breath you say that "In a poll 56% of Republicans earning more than $75,000 annually would "strongly" or "partially" agree with candidate who would bar illegal immigrants from path to citizenship." Do you know the difference between highly skilled legal immigrants and illegal immigrants?. Why do you have to imply that all highly skilled are illegal, infact 99.99% of highly skilled workers (Tech workers) came to the USA legally and continue to live legally. They are here at the behest of their employers.
So please correct your article to reflect that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119154966904949270.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
An Upset highly skilled worker
I agree, I was so upset when I read it... Thank you Logiclife for bringing that to our notice.
I just wrote an email to the editors with the email address provided by walking_dude. My email says this:
Dear Editor
You mention in an article dated today that "HIGH-TECH EMPLOYERS get lift from House Republican letter to Speaker Pelosi urging passage of immigration bill to help "attract and retain" high-skilled workers". And in the same breath you say that "In a poll 56% of Republicans earning more than $75,000 annually would "strongly" or "partially" agree with candidate who would bar illegal immigrants from path to citizenship." Do you know the difference between highly skilled legal immigrants and illegal immigrants?. Why do you have to imply that all highly skilled are illegal, infact 99.99% of highly skilled workers (Tech workers) came to the USA legally and continue to live legally. They are here at the behest of their employers.
So please correct your article to reflect that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119154966904949270.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
An Upset highly skilled worker
dresses Yamaguchi Funny Bike
desi3933
06-24 10:29 PM
desi3933,
May be you're right. for the benefit of the others, can you provide more info, and any basis for your statements. This would be useful information to have for a lot of affected individuals. Is there any reference to INA or CFR that one could look up?
the following are desi3933's comments:
- sertasheep:Accruing over 180 days will entail a bar of 3 years for re-entry after the person leaves the US.
- sertasheep: Accruing over 365 days will entail a bar of 10 years for re-entry after the person leaves the US.
- desi3933: 3/10 year ban applies to unlawful presence only and NOT for out of status. If I-94 date is passed, only then person starts accumulating unlawful presence. There is a BIG distinction between unlawful presence and out of status.
Yes, there is a distinction between if the I-94 date has expired, or if it is valid
Sertasheep -
Here is a link that has details about both both Out of Status and Unlawful Presence. Please note that 3/10 year ban applies only for Unlawful Presence case only.
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news729.htm
As per memo -
Aliens Admitted Until a Date Certain: In general, an alien admitted until a specified date will begin to accrue unlawful presence either:
* when the date on the I-94 (or any extension) has passed, or
* if INS or an IJ makes a finding of a status violation, whichever comes first.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
May be you're right. for the benefit of the others, can you provide more info, and any basis for your statements. This would be useful information to have for a lot of affected individuals. Is there any reference to INA or CFR that one could look up?
the following are desi3933's comments:
- sertasheep:Accruing over 180 days will entail a bar of 3 years for re-entry after the person leaves the US.
- sertasheep: Accruing over 365 days will entail a bar of 10 years for re-entry after the person leaves the US.
- desi3933: 3/10 year ban applies to unlawful presence only and NOT for out of status. If I-94 date is passed, only then person starts accumulating unlawful presence. There is a BIG distinction between unlawful presence and out of status.
Yes, there is a distinction between if the I-94 date has expired, or if it is valid
Sertasheep -
Here is a link that has details about both both Out of Status and Unlawful Presence. Please note that 3/10 year ban applies only for Unlawful Presence case only.
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news729.htm
As per memo -
Aliens Admitted Until a Date Certain: In general, an alien admitted until a specified date will begin to accrue unlawful presence either:
* when the date on the I-94 (or any extension) has passed, or
* if INS or an IJ makes a finding of a status violation, whichever comes first.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
more...
makeup Weird Bikes funny-bikes2
somegchuh
11-18 02:41 AM
I just wanted to get this discussion back on track of ppl wanting to be able rise up a little, let their wives work and feel the freedom to make a decision to go back.
Let me restart the discussion. I know we are all frustrated to the extent that we want to pack up and leave but we have invested too much time to do that. But let's assume things start moving and we get our GC's in a year or so. Having spent so many years waiting to "settle" would you be willing to unsettle your life again and start over in a country that you left more than a decade ago.
Note that I am not doubting anyone's intention or disrespecting any entry. Just wondering if its the frustation talking or there are ppl who would actually leave?
Let me restart the discussion. I know we are all frustrated to the extent that we want to pack up and leave but we have invested too much time to do that. But let's assume things start moving and we get our GC's in a year or so. Having spent so many years waiting to "settle" would you be willing to unsettle your life again and start over in a country that you left more than a decade ago.
Note that I am not doubting anyone's intention or disrespecting any entry. Just wondering if its the frustation talking or there are ppl who would actually leave?
girlfriend Funny Bikes, Funny
hopefulgc
03-31 10:48 AM
Hopefully EB3 should see some movement in this bulletin
hairstyles Funny and Bizarre Bicycles
sands
11-04 06:24 PM
5K limit has been removed since long back,now its allowed upto 100,000 K dollars as gift from India but you have just have to prove that the amount doesn't have tax liability left on it.
Gravitation
07-20 03:05 PM
How come we didn't have any phone campaign? What were our lobbyists doing?
I'm glued to C-SPAN whenever anything related to immigration is going on in the senate. This time I wasn't aware of it.
We need to be more alert this time. Maybe a phone campaign or web-fax campaign would have turned the scale! We gotta be more alert.
I'm glued to C-SPAN whenever anything related to immigration is going on in the senate. This time I wasn't aware of it.
We need to be more alert this time. Maybe a phone campaign or web-fax campaign would have turned the scale! We gotta be more alert.
bigboy007
05-28 03:09 PM
Good point , Yes we need to give our response to it. but neither H1B says its only for INNOVATORS rather it says only SKILLED workers. Not even every PhD is innovator . May be in some circumstances the so said perspective is true but i dont agree with every point.
I work in a comp where mostly they have GC or Citz and in some cases they waited even 2 months + and then decided to take H1b's.
There are no enough Americans who can do the Job if these guys think its H1B and remove H1B every Job will land as an outsourcing . If not h1B many Outsourcing IT firms will find some way to temp bring IT pros and eventually outsource.
The Key point that IV is making is how much taxes we are paying and how good we are making to American economy. If they remove H1B ,then they understand how and what they have lost.
I work in a comp where mostly they have GC or Citz and in some cases they waited even 2 months + and then decided to take H1b's.
There are no enough Americans who can do the Job if these guys think its H1B and remove H1B every Job will land as an outsourcing . If not h1B many Outsourcing IT firms will find some way to temp bring IT pros and eventually outsource.
The Key point that IV is making is how much taxes we are paying and how good we are making to American economy. If they remove H1B ,then they understand how and what they have lost.
