SunnySurya
08-05 09:52 AM
You right... But my question is why can't I contribute to IV as well as to his effort. After all the reason I want to contribute to IV is that I want some thing in return that will help me get my Green Card faster...
I am worried that people who originally filled in Eb2 and have later PDs will be punished.
I am worried that people will seek easy way out instead of concentrating on fixes like visa recapture.
... and dont forget that you drink from it too.
Take the $500 or $1000 and contribute to IV so that we can get a solid resolution.
No wonder illegals are so strong. United they stand. Pity 'highly educated' workers use their 'intelligence' for matters nefarious and counter-productive. No wonder we are in this situation to start with.
If there were a collective voice with strong bargaining power, we would have not been in this situation.
Law breakers are feared. Law abiding folks are derided.
Go on, feed Loo Dogs for yet another sensational story on why ALL immigrants need to go back.
Dont forget, for the average Joe anyone that does not 'look like them' can be a target for hate crime and resentment. PR about a case like this can only make the entire community weaker. If you happen to be Indian, what is to stop someone that is upset about immigrants not targeting you or your family? They wont know that YOU are their protector in chief, with the lawsuit stuck in your backpocket. You are but a symbol of the problem that you make out to be.
Seriously. I have been involved in very key discussions with very senior public figures. Their number one pet peeve: You guys are so divided, even if we wanted to help, we are unable to.
You just go on to prove their point.
It is understandable that you are upset about what you see as being 'unfair'... just extrapolate that to the Ron Hiras of the world and NumberUSAs of the world ... you are feeding the larger cause of hatred towards highly skilled workers ... by creating a false impression that highly skilled workers abuse the system...
Dont make your pillow peeves an issue that comes back to hurt ALL, including you. On many dimensions. This is serious stuff. Think about it.
I am worried that people who originally filled in Eb2 and have later PDs will be punished.
I am worried that people will seek easy way out instead of concentrating on fixes like visa recapture.
... and dont forget that you drink from it too.
Take the $500 or $1000 and contribute to IV so that we can get a solid resolution.
No wonder illegals are so strong. United they stand. Pity 'highly educated' workers use their 'intelligence' for matters nefarious and counter-productive. No wonder we are in this situation to start with.
If there were a collective voice with strong bargaining power, we would have not been in this situation.
Law breakers are feared. Law abiding folks are derided.
Go on, feed Loo Dogs for yet another sensational story on why ALL immigrants need to go back.
Dont forget, for the average Joe anyone that does not 'look like them' can be a target for hate crime and resentment. PR about a case like this can only make the entire community weaker. If you happen to be Indian, what is to stop someone that is upset about immigrants not targeting you or your family? They wont know that YOU are their protector in chief, with the lawsuit stuck in your backpocket. You are but a symbol of the problem that you make out to be.
Seriously. I have been involved in very key discussions with very senior public figures. Their number one pet peeve: You guys are so divided, even if we wanted to help, we are unable to.
You just go on to prove their point.
It is understandable that you are upset about what you see as being 'unfair'... just extrapolate that to the Ron Hiras of the world and NumberUSAs of the world ... you are feeding the larger cause of hatred towards highly skilled workers ... by creating a false impression that highly skilled workers abuse the system...
Dont make your pillow peeves an issue that comes back to hurt ALL, including you. On many dimensions. This is serious stuff. Think about it.
wallpaper Keira Knightley The Jacket
Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
snathan
01-06 09:18 PM
Israel is doing this for their safty. They are a soverign country and attacking the terrorist. Hamas don't want cease fire, then why they expect mercy. If they don't want to stop the war, then why other people raise their voice. Mind your business.
They are not occupy any body's land. They live there from thousand of years, which God given to them. When they not recognize the saviour and cruxified, God's wrath fall upon them and they are disperesed. But to fulfil the Holy Bible prophesy, they regain the land and living there. No force in earth to distroy them. They are surrounded by hostile nations. Still they are surviving.
These Arabs during and after the time of Mohammed tried to conquer the lands, and they occupy the land of Jews. They occupy the Constanople, where the biggest church situated, and they anexed to ottaman empire, now Turkey. They slaughtered everybody in that city. They did it in Syria, Egypt in AD1100. They distroy their culture, language etc. They cut the tongue, if anybody speaks the local language Syric in Syria and Coptic in Egypt. You can ask the minority people from these countries or read history. Barbarian Arabs conqured Indian subcontinent and convert the people by force. So Islam is not a religion of peace. It started with violence and end with violence. Every religion, religous people will be pious, but in Islam, they become terrorist. Satan is controlling these people. Sorry to say that. But it is true. In the last days, God punish these evil people. May all wiped out.
See this web site for more detailshttp://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm
Their ideology is kill th kafir (non-beleivers). thats where all the problems started.
They are not occupy any body's land. They live there from thousand of years, which God given to them. When they not recognize the saviour and cruxified, God's wrath fall upon them and they are disperesed. But to fulfil the Holy Bible prophesy, they regain the land and living there. No force in earth to distroy them. They are surrounded by hostile nations. Still they are surviving.
These Arabs during and after the time of Mohammed tried to conquer the lands, and they occupy the land of Jews. They occupy the Constanople, where the biggest church situated, and they anexed to ottaman empire, now Turkey. They slaughtered everybody in that city. They did it in Syria, Egypt in AD1100. They distroy their culture, language etc. They cut the tongue, if anybody speaks the local language Syric in Syria and Coptic in Egypt. You can ask the minority people from these countries or read history. Barbarian Arabs conqured Indian subcontinent and convert the people by force. So Islam is not a religion of peace. It started with violence and end with violence. Every religion, religous people will be pious, but in Islam, they become terrorist. Satan is controlling these people. Sorry to say that. But it is true. In the last days, God punish these evil people. May all wiped out.
See this web site for more detailshttp://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm
Their ideology is kill th kafir (non-beleivers). thats where all the problems started.
2011 wallpaper Keira Knightley
hiralal
06-07 09:38 PM
Chances of loosing right now, is very slim, since everything is lost and if you still have a good healthy job, chances are you would have it, and if you have backup like double income, you are running in no probability zone.
After your i485 gets denied, I am assuming you can file MTR and wait for it. More senior members may throw light but I am guessing you would have 2-3 months time to leave the country.
. o.k. Thanks. I don't understand why chances of losing are slim ?
it is not high but it is not slim either for those on EAD / H1. majority of jobs posted ask for GC. H1 is in complete mess if you talk to any immi lawyer (I have a friend who is lawyer and I heard the same from a lawyer on desi radio).
buying one house may still be o.k. ...buying 2 - 3 houses to put it on rent is absolute nightmare ..my friend tried that too (he too believed earlier that land is best asset) ... the renter stopped paying rent and he had trouble in evicting him ..on top of it the renter painted the rooms in wierd colors ...also how do you chechk how many people are staying in the house that you give on rent ..it is messy all way around ..if you really believe in land then better to buy some REITS (that is in mess too right now). luckily I had economics in my final year in engg college and the first and the fundamental equation is relation between supply and demand.
in this country land is in huge huge supply (just look around) and families are getting smaller and green cards is given to 60 year old's (who just leave).
credit is tight and will be for a long long time ..baby boomers will start selling their homes once prices stop falling ...so supply is massive and less demand ..
After your i485 gets denied, I am assuming you can file MTR and wait for it. More senior members may throw light but I am guessing you would have 2-3 months time to leave the country.
. o.k. Thanks. I don't understand why chances of losing are slim ?
it is not high but it is not slim either for those on EAD / H1. majority of jobs posted ask for GC. H1 is in complete mess if you talk to any immi lawyer (I have a friend who is lawyer and I heard the same from a lawyer on desi radio).
buying one house may still be o.k. ...buying 2 - 3 houses to put it on rent is absolute nightmare ..my friend tried that too (he too believed earlier that land is best asset) ... the renter stopped paying rent and he had trouble in evicting him ..on top of it the renter painted the rooms in wierd colors ...also how do you chechk how many people are staying in the house that you give on rent ..it is messy all way around ..if you really believe in land then better to buy some REITS (that is in mess too right now). luckily I had economics in my final year in engg college and the first and the fundamental equation is relation between supply and demand.
in this country land is in huge huge supply (just look around) and families are getting smaller and green cards is given to 60 year old's (who just leave).
credit is tight and will be for a long long time ..baby boomers will start selling their homes once prices stop falling ...so supply is massive and less demand ..
more...
smuggymba
07-28 02:45 PM
But if you look past history, skilled immigration has had allies when Republican have been in power. Its a wrong notion that h1B/Eb people have that democratic party is for immigrant. Actually Democratci party is for the illegal masses only.
Amnesty has been given by Democrats only earlier and this is their third attempt I guess
Amnesty has been given by Democrats only earlier and this is their third attempt I guess
unitednations
03-24 07:56 PM
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/98/98-60340.CV0.wpd.pdf
Above case is the most frequent cited case by california/vermont service center and appeals office in denying h-1b's.
Essentially; many years ago a nurse staffing agency was filing h-1b's and they were doing it for a specific set of nurses which actually required a degree (most nurses do not require a degree).
The staffing agency was using one of the ways to demonstrate that the job required a degree (which is listed in 8 cfr 214.2h) that it normally hired nurses with degrees. Essentially; they were trying to circumvent h-1b for jobs that normally didn't require degrees.
USCIS and the courts basically stated that if a person is not working at your location then you are considered a "token" employer and that the job requirements of where you are actually working is what needs to be demonstrated to see if the job requires a degree.
Most of h-1b rfe's are trying to determine whether the petitioner is the employer or the agent (they ask for office information, project details and intertwine it to whether you have specailty occupation work at your location) or if the information on your payroll reports; your office size, pictures, etc., show that you are an agent. If they believe that you are an agent then they go the purchase order route.
Now; uscis is totally misapplying this because h-1b is simple; job requreis a degree and person has that degree. In this particular case; nursing agency was trying to create a degree requirement for job that normally doesn't require one.
However; they are applying this standard to all the staffing companies. I would read it and memorize it as this is quoted in every one of the denials.
Above case is the most frequent cited case by california/vermont service center and appeals office in denying h-1b's.
Essentially; many years ago a nurse staffing agency was filing h-1b's and they were doing it for a specific set of nurses which actually required a degree (most nurses do not require a degree).
The staffing agency was using one of the ways to demonstrate that the job required a degree (which is listed in 8 cfr 214.2h) that it normally hired nurses with degrees. Essentially; they were trying to circumvent h-1b for jobs that normally didn't require degrees.
USCIS and the courts basically stated that if a person is not working at your location then you are considered a "token" employer and that the job requirements of where you are actually working is what needs to be demonstrated to see if the job requires a degree.
Most of h-1b rfe's are trying to determine whether the petitioner is the employer or the agent (they ask for office information, project details and intertwine it to whether you have specailty occupation work at your location) or if the information on your payroll reports; your office size, pictures, etc., show that you are an agent. If they believe that you are an agent then they go the purchase order route.
Now; uscis is totally misapplying this because h-1b is simple; job requreis a degree and person has that degree. In this particular case; nursing agency was trying to create a degree requirement for job that normally doesn't require one.
However; they are applying this standard to all the staffing companies. I would read it and memorize it as this is quoted in every one of the denials.
more...
mbawa2574
03-25 11:12 PM
Ok, so everytime I see a rent vs buy discussion I see apartment living compared with living in a house. This may not apply to a lot of other places but here's how it goes in SF Bay Area:
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
Dude you are missing on the tax savings part of the game. U need to take it into account. Specially if you are making 100k + . Buying a house will save you big on taxes for first couple of years since interest is tax deductible. For couple of years interest is the major part of your payment.
Also people suggesting that this is not a great time to buy, then what would be ?There are bargains in the market. A Good investor never buys a property when prices touch the roof. U wanna buy right on the bottom. Also risk factors depends on markets and geography where u are looking. NY metro,CA (San Fran & LA), New England area are the best places to buy as job markets are diversified and markets have potential to sustain ups and downs. Property prices have tanked just 10 points and have already corrected pretty much in good neighborhoods and there is inventory sitting on the market with great deals . U cannot compare apples with oranges. Hence Detroit,Ohio etc have no comparison to these progressive markets I mentioned earlier. Also governments don't cut new lots at the same rate in these states as compared to other US markets keeping the prices more or less stable.
On NJ- I have not seen a single Native born American liking the state. It is considered most corrupt state in the union but still pretty much rich people live in NJ including our friend Lou Dobbs :-) He curses NJ almost once in a month on his show and lives in a 300 acre farm house in the same state. So I will rather ignore the comments posted about NJ in earlier post.
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
Dude you are missing on the tax savings part of the game. U need to take it into account. Specially if you are making 100k + . Buying a house will save you big on taxes for first couple of years since interest is tax deductible. For couple of years interest is the major part of your payment.
Also people suggesting that this is not a great time to buy, then what would be ?There are bargains in the market. A Good investor never buys a property when prices touch the roof. U wanna buy right on the bottom. Also risk factors depends on markets and geography where u are looking. NY metro,CA (San Fran & LA), New England area are the best places to buy as job markets are diversified and markets have potential to sustain ups and downs. Property prices have tanked just 10 points and have already corrected pretty much in good neighborhoods and there is inventory sitting on the market with great deals . U cannot compare apples with oranges. Hence Detroit,Ohio etc have no comparison to these progressive markets I mentioned earlier. Also governments don't cut new lots at the same rate in these states as compared to other US markets keeping the prices more or less stable.
On NJ- I have not seen a single Native born American liking the state. It is considered most corrupt state in the union but still pretty much rich people live in NJ including our friend Lou Dobbs :-) He curses NJ almost once in a month on his show and lives in a 300 acre farm house in the same state. So I will rather ignore the comments posted about NJ in earlier post.
2010 hot Keira Knightley Keira
abhisam
07-26 04:01 PM
UN,
A quick question for you. So far, I havent found anything wrong with my I-485 application.
My wife is currently on an H4 visa and is a dependent applicant on our AOS application. She was working in our native country before coming to the US. When the lawyer filled her biographic information, she did not mention her employment in India. She just filled that section as N/A. We did not care at that moment because we thought USCIS might be more concerned about my employment history, as I am the primary applicant.
Now after reading all this, I'm a bit worried. And my question is exactly opposite of what most people are asking. Does not stating my wife's foreign employment mean fraud to USCIS? I really appreciate all help that you can extend in this regard.
Thanks,
abhisam
A quick question for you. So far, I havent found anything wrong with my I-485 application.
My wife is currently on an H4 visa and is a dependent applicant on our AOS application. She was working in our native country before coming to the US. When the lawyer filled her biographic information, she did not mention her employment in India. She just filled that section as N/A. We did not care at that moment because we thought USCIS might be more concerned about my employment history, as I am the primary applicant.
Now after reading all this, I'm a bit worried. And my question is exactly opposite of what most people are asking. Does not stating my wife's foreign employment mean fraud to USCIS? I really appreciate all help that you can extend in this regard.
Thanks,
abhisam
more...
sanju
01-06 05:32 PM
Religion is to be in peace. But people developed different thoughts other then peace using religion. Every religion beat each other, that is really sad.
I am sad to see people die because of war and terrorism. Let us pray for every one and ask God Guidance to stop the terrorism.
Tom,
It appears that you arrived late on the scene. So let me assist you to catch-up. Soon you will see a post saying - which God should we ask for Guidance. Is it Hindu God or Muslim God of Christan God. As you know everybody have their own version of the God. Whom do you want us to ask for Guidance? Because if it is not my God, I don't want to ask God to stop terrorism.
What will you say to that? You see this is a no win situation, defining God in terms of a religion is now engraved in human genes. Mankind will most probably see a lot of people kill each other in the name of religion, and the few who will left out, at that time, will realize that this religion thing is all hoax. We have two options, one, to understand that religion has nothing to do with God, and two, wait for most of humanity to kill one another before reaching a conclusion that religion has nothing to do with God. Either way, we are all headed there.
God has already given us tools, wisdom, strength and resources to not fight. We all apply our wisdom to divide each other based on religion, color, race, gender etc etc etc. I don't know what more we can ask from God because he already gave us everything but we just don't want to use what God gave us. We all continue to fight, for which reason, for the reason we define as "fighting for God". Thats is absolutly absurd and frankly, I don't know what more we can ask from "God".
.
I am sad to see people die because of war and terrorism. Let us pray for every one and ask God Guidance to stop the terrorism.
Tom,
It appears that you arrived late on the scene. So let me assist you to catch-up. Soon you will see a post saying - which God should we ask for Guidance. Is it Hindu God or Muslim God of Christan God. As you know everybody have their own version of the God. Whom do you want us to ask for Guidance? Because if it is not my God, I don't want to ask God to stop terrorism.
What will you say to that? You see this is a no win situation, defining God in terms of a religion is now engraved in human genes. Mankind will most probably see a lot of people kill each other in the name of religion, and the few who will left out, at that time, will realize that this religion thing is all hoax. We have two options, one, to understand that religion has nothing to do with God, and two, wait for most of humanity to kill one another before reaching a conclusion that religion has nothing to do with God. Either way, we are all headed there.
God has already given us tools, wisdom, strength and resources to not fight. We all apply our wisdom to divide each other based on religion, color, race, gender etc etc etc. I don't know what more we can ask from God because he already gave us everything but we just don't want to use what God gave us. We all continue to fight, for which reason, for the reason we define as "fighting for God". Thats is absolutly absurd and frankly, I don't know what more we can ask from "God".
.
hair Keira Knightley 01
rbalaji5
07-13 02:03 PM
But the same 100-0 logic can be applied between EB1 and Eb2-India. How does EB1 of 2008 get it immediately but EB2-I waits more than 4 years (speaking for myself here) -clearly preference is at play here. if that makes sense then a 100-0 ratio for EB2/EB3 also makes sense
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
What you said is correct.?.
EB2 has more experience / advance degree compared to EB3. EB1 has more advanced than EB2.
Can you give preference to 12th Standard guy instead of Engineering guy.
I agree with Pappu
Each employment based categories are for different levels.
Wakeup EB2s..
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
What you said is correct.?.
EB2 has more experience / advance degree compared to EB3. EB1 has more advanced than EB2.
Can you give preference to 12th Standard guy instead of Engineering guy.
I agree with Pappu
Each employment based categories are for different levels.
Wakeup EB2s..
more...
NKR
04-14 02:30 PM
wow you come back to the same argument again ..and you tell others. maybe you should ask your child ..would you prefer that I spend more time with you or is it o.k if I see you only on weekends.
you are saying the others are not understanding your point ..but at the same time you are not understanding the other side of argument.
basically you are equating a bigger house means better childhood ..which is plain wrong. maybe your case or for few lucky people that maybe the case ..but I suspect for 99 percent of people ..maintaining and buying homes means they have to slog harder and that means less time for kids !!
Glad to know that you remember me. I don�t understand your logic, do you mean to say that I go to my house only on weekends, or do you mean to say that people who live in apartments spend the weekdays with family and go to work only on weekends?. What is your point dude?.
you are saying the others are not understanding your point ..but at the same time you are not understanding the other side of argument.
basically you are equating a bigger house means better childhood ..which is plain wrong. maybe your case or for few lucky people that maybe the case ..but I suspect for 99 percent of people ..maintaining and buying homes means they have to slog harder and that means less time for kids !!
Glad to know that you remember me. I don�t understand your logic, do you mean to say that I go to my house only on weekends, or do you mean to say that people who live in apartments spend the weekdays with family and go to work only on weekends?. What is your point dude?.
hot Keira Knightley#39;s Chanel Coco
gjoe
07-14 02:35 PM
Looks like the situation in this thread is going to get from bad to worse.
more...
house keira knightley star wars
brshankar
08-06 10:52 AM
Yes you are absolutely correct. He is only eligible in EB3 but I know of people who have applied in EB2.
tattoo keira knightley photoshopped.
go_guy123
07-28 03:39 PM
Asain-Americans seems to favor Obama overwhelmingly as per this survey. its interesting to read the survey - these immigrants who have gone thru the process themselves and might have friends/relatives in the process - didnt mention immigration as one of their important topic to decide on the vote. Understandably economy is the top topic but was expecting to see immigration atleast behind economy.
POLITICS-US: Asian Americans Tilt Heavily Toward Obama - IPS ipsnews.net (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44144)
Bulk come through family based/asylum etc and very little come through skilled immigration. As H1B you are better off with GOP.
GOP wants to restrict the family based as well....source of chain immigration.
POLITICS-US: Asian Americans Tilt Heavily Toward Obama - IPS ipsnews.net (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44144)
Bulk come through family based/asylum etc and very little come through skilled immigration. As H1B you are better off with GOP.
GOP wants to restrict the family based as well....source of chain immigration.
more...
pictures dresses Keira Knightley keira
pappu
03-25 11:58 PM
I am trying to upload a pdf file but keep getting error message.
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/temp/forum_attach/temporaryjob140denial.pdf
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/temp/forum_attach/temporaryjob140denial.pdf
dresses keira knightley hair.
file485
07-08 04:35 PM
thanks UN..
we don't mean to bug you..!!
but sometimes these r so scary..it feels we r better off being illegal in this country..
all this is just plain BS..when we r paying so much in taxes and SS in this country..we r still chopped and diced like vegetables ...
btw..on the same note since you r here..does the 'out of status' count only after the last entry in to thr country..or it is still scrutinised right from the time you land into the US..
pls post..
we don't mean to bug you..!!
but sometimes these r so scary..it feels we r better off being illegal in this country..
all this is just plain BS..when we r paying so much in taxes and SS in this country..we r still chopped and diced like vegetables ...
btw..on the same note since you r here..does the 'out of status' count only after the last entry in to thr country..or it is still scrutinised right from the time you land into the US..
pls post..
more...
makeup hair hot Keira Knightley#39;s
gc28262
12-19 10:31 PM
sriramkalyan,
I find it irritating that every now and then, some tom dick and harry comes to these forms and say - "time to close down" whenever you see something that you don't like. Frankly, this shallow view and negative attitude is irritating.
Sanju,
Your posts are definitely interesting. Please start a blog. We all will be happy to read it there. We should not post non-immigration related stuff on IV (especially those that are controversial). As for IV, unity is more important than freedom of speech.
So I agree with sriramkalyan, threads such as these should be closed.
I find it irritating that every now and then, some tom dick and harry comes to these forms and say - "time to close down" whenever you see something that you don't like. Frankly, this shallow view and negative attitude is irritating.
Sanju,
Your posts are definitely interesting. Please start a blog. We all will be happy to read it there. We should not post non-immigration related stuff on IV (especially those that are controversial). As for IV, unity is more important than freedom of speech.
So I agree with sriramkalyan, threads such as these should be closed.
girlfriend keira knightley hair.
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
hairstyles keira knightley short hair.
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
ss1026
12-20 04:23 PM
Every one I know (muslim or non muslim) is appaled by the Mumbai incident. A sensible person has to be. I do not know the sentiment in pakistan though I am sure there is a propaganda machine at work there. I have many pakistan collegues here and they were outraged. If this was an act, they are good it. This is similar to saying that most hindus were not appaled by what happened in gujarat/orissa.
Silly as it sounds, there is no justification to kill innocent people. I read the mumbai attacked forum and was horrified what was said on both sides. Unfortunately, truth is usually the first casaulty in such incidents followed by been responsible and polite. I am sure words were exchanged from all sides.
My hope or naivety is straigth forward. Lets stop the cycle of hatred and get the guilty to justice (tough justice if that is what is needed). India is destined for greatness and I believe it is time for a Justice system that functions without prejuidice or fear.
Silly as it sounds, there is no justification to kill innocent people. I read the mumbai attacked forum and was horrified what was said on both sides. Unfortunately, truth is usually the first casaulty in such incidents followed by been responsible and polite. I am sure words were exchanged from all sides.
My hope or naivety is straigth forward. Lets stop the cycle of hatred and get the guilty to justice (tough justice if that is what is needed). India is destined for greatness and I believe it is time for a Justice system that functions without prejuidice or fear.
dealsnet
09-29 01:35 PM
SEE THE 1999 ARTICLE IN NY TIMES.
Bush get the blame for every thing in the world.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
NYT said:
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
NYT said:
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
Bush get the blame for every thing in the world.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
NYT said:
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
NYT said:
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
