Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
wallpaper 2011 F2000 CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES
mrajatish
07-08 11:01 AM
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Particularly worried about what you just mentioned about USCIS using other means to deny application - this seems to go against the principle of 245(K) which was to allow folks to get GC irrespective of a violation in the past. If the intent is to not let folks use 245(K), why even publish such a law? MOre importantly, for folks who have been staying and working in a country for many years (read > 5 yrs), it is possible that they might have some glitches and 245(K) was there to cover that (I am not saying every one has gone through this but a lot of people in 2000/01/02 went through this).
What are the grounds for I-485 denial if my I-140 is approved?
The followings are the grounds for an I-485 denial.
a. Some crimes committed by the applicant.
b. The applicant is out of status or illegally worked for over 180 days.
c. If the I-140 is employer-sponsored, the applicant changes job before I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
d. The applicant drastically changes occupation or job field.
e. The applicant travels abroad without Advance Parole (H/L visa or status is excepted).
f. The applicant’s failure to RFE or fingerprint.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Particularly worried about what you just mentioned about USCIS using other means to deny application - this seems to go against the principle of 245(K) which was to allow folks to get GC irrespective of a violation in the past. If the intent is to not let folks use 245(K), why even publish such a law? MOre importantly, for folks who have been staying and working in a country for many years (read > 5 yrs), it is possible that they might have some glitches and 245(K) was there to cover that (I am not saying every one has gone through this but a lot of people in 2000/01/02 went through this).
What are the grounds for I-485 denial if my I-140 is approved?
The followings are the grounds for an I-485 denial.
a. Some crimes committed by the applicant.
b. The applicant is out of status or illegally worked for over 180 days.
c. If the I-140 is employer-sponsored, the applicant changes job before I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
d. The applicant drastically changes occupation or job field.
e. The applicant travels abroad without Advance Parole (H/L visa or status is excepted).
f. The applicant’s failure to RFE or fingerprint.
Macaca
05-20 06:13 PM
The United States v Canada (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration) The Economist
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
2011 Six months of daylight saving
unitednations
08-14 09:17 PM
To United Nation
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
I don't see much of a problem because it was less then 180 days.
Although uscis sometimes asks for w2's in rfe's; lawyers shouldn't send them in proactively. If you are making too much in future base employment then it can be a problem. if you aren't making enough then it can cause status issues (the smart lawyers would use the w2's, tax returns, not to send them in but to see if there may be a problem in the future and try to remedy the situation now).
I know at least 25 people in the last month and a half who had status issues with unpaid time and their h-1b visas had expired. All of them went to Canada; stayed one or two days and re-entered and used auto revalidation to reset the 180 day clock.
I would tell them at high level what they needed to do but everyone is afraid of leaving the country and coming back in without a visa through canada; espeically when all their friends, relatives say not to do so. Depending on what language a person speaks; i would direct them to specific people who had done it so that they could get the most minute detail on how to do it; punjabi; telugu; hindi; gujarati, etc.
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
I don't see much of a problem because it was less then 180 days.
Although uscis sometimes asks for w2's in rfe's; lawyers shouldn't send them in proactively. If you are making too much in future base employment then it can be a problem. if you aren't making enough then it can cause status issues (the smart lawyers would use the w2's, tax returns, not to send them in but to see if there may be a problem in the future and try to remedy the situation now).
I know at least 25 people in the last month and a half who had status issues with unpaid time and their h-1b visas had expired. All of them went to Canada; stayed one or two days and re-entered and used auto revalidation to reset the 180 day clock.
I would tell them at high level what they needed to do but everyone is afraid of leaving the country and coming back in without a visa through canada; espeically when all their friends, relatives say not to do so. Depending on what language a person speaks; i would direct them to specific people who had done it so that they could get the most minute detail on how to do it; punjabi; telugu; hindi; gujarati, etc.
more...
Macaca
05-20 06:21 PM
Diplomatically Insulting the Chinese (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/diplomatically-insulting-the-chinese-5329) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The National Interest
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
Pagal
06-05 03:00 PM
This is your justification for renting? ....Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
Hello ValidIV,
Good for you that you are making some money off the real estate investments....but why generalize?
The right decision on whether to buy or rent depends on many factors including your financial capabilities, location, taxation and future plans.
For some, renting makes financial sense, for others buying! :)
Hello ValidIV,
Good for you that you are making some money off the real estate investments....but why generalize?
The right decision on whether to buy or rent depends on many factors including your financial capabilities, location, taxation and future plans.
For some, renting makes financial sense, for others buying! :)
more...
apt29
07-29 03:36 PM
I regret the day when Obama became the president, he is just another politician who does not give a damn about EB2,EB3....he is just worried about "re-uniting families" (aka supporter of illegal immigration)
I am no supporter of either party. To be fair, the economy could have collapsed without him and most of us could have been back home by now.
I am no supporter of either party. To be fair, the economy could have collapsed without him and most of us could have been back home by now.
2010 Daylight Saving Time 2011:
insbaby
03-25 06:56 AM
Awesome piece of advice..I've got to meet ya!!
Because you Can't Leave America.
Because you Can't Leave America.
more...
file485
07-07 11:06 PM
I have a .pdf file as to how the 485 files are processed right from the time we mail the packets until they r adjucticated..it is from ilw.com..
I cant attach the pdf file,probably it is too big..
pls get in touch with that attorney too..
dont lose heart,there should be some way around..only thing is catch hold of a good lawyer..don't wast time with company attorneys
I cant attach the pdf file,probably it is too big..
pls get in touch with that attorney too..
dont lose heart,there should be some way around..only thing is catch hold of a good lawyer..don't wast time with company attorneys
hair 0800 (daylight savings fiasco)
mrajatish
07-08 11:01 AM
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Particularly worried about what you just mentioned about USCIS using other means to deny application - this seems to go against the principle of 245(K) which was to allow folks to get GC irrespective of a violation in the past. If the intent is to not let folks use 245(K), why even publish such a law? MOre importantly, for folks who have been staying and working in a country for many years (read > 5 yrs), it is possible that they might have some glitches and 245(K) was there to cover that (I am not saying every one has gone through this but a lot of people in 2000/01/02 went through this).
What are the grounds for I-485 denial if my I-140 is approved?
The followings are the grounds for an I-485 denial.
a. Some crimes committed by the applicant.
b. The applicant is out of status or illegally worked for over 180 days.
c. If the I-140 is employer-sponsored, the applicant changes job before I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
d. The applicant drastically changes occupation or job field.
e. The applicant travels abroad without Advance Parole (H/L visa or status is excepted).
f. The applicant’s failure to RFE or fingerprint.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Particularly worried about what you just mentioned about USCIS using other means to deny application - this seems to go against the principle of 245(K) which was to allow folks to get GC irrespective of a violation in the past. If the intent is to not let folks use 245(K), why even publish such a law? MOre importantly, for folks who have been staying and working in a country for many years (read > 5 yrs), it is possible that they might have some glitches and 245(K) was there to cover that (I am not saying every one has gone through this but a lot of people in 2000/01/02 went through this).
What are the grounds for I-485 denial if my I-140 is approved?
The followings are the grounds for an I-485 denial.
a. Some crimes committed by the applicant.
b. The applicant is out of status or illegally worked for over 180 days.
c. If the I-140 is employer-sponsored, the applicant changes job before I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
d. The applicant drastically changes occupation or job field.
e. The applicant travels abroad without Advance Parole (H/L visa or status is excepted).
f. The applicant’s failure to RFE or fingerprint.
more...
nixstor
08-11 04:00 PM
Born in Texas and raised in IDAHO speaks volumes about his stand towards immigration issues.
perm2gc,
I am curious why you bold everything. on usenet, writing in caps and bold is conisdered shouting and rude. I know this is not usenet but somehow I see that in most of your posts and wanted to know why you do that.
perm2gc,
I am curious why you bold everything. on usenet, writing in caps and bold is conisdered shouting and rude. I know this is not usenet but somehow I see that in most of your posts and wanted to know why you do that.
hot Welcome to 2011 and iPhone
rimzhim
02-02 01:23 PM
this info is for lou dobbs and he can search for this information in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (for all the middle-class that can get free information, most likey coded by an H1B)
[edit] Taxation status of H-1B workers
H-1B workers are legally required to pay the same taxes as any other US resident, including Social Security and Medicare.[2] Any person who spends more than 183 days in the US in a calendar year is a tax resident and is required to pay US taxes on their worldwide income. From the IRS perspective, it doesn't matter if that income is paid in the US or elsewhere. If an H-1B worker is given a living allowance, it is treated the same by the IRS as any other US resident. In some cases, H-1B workers pay higher taxes than a US citizen because they are not entitled to certain deductions (eg. head of household deduction amongst many others). Some H-1B workers are not eligible to receive any Social Security or Medicare benefits unless they are able to adjust status to that of permanent resident.[3] However, if their country of citizenship has a tax agreement with the United States, they are able to collect the Social Security they've earned even if they don't gain permanent residency there. Such agreements are negotiated between the United States and other countries, typically those which have comparable standards of living and public retirement systems
Lou knows it all; he knows it is the L-1 visa holders and not the H1B visa holders. But his viewers know what H1b is and have never heard of L1. So it helps him to cite H1B. He has shown "figures with 0 tax returns" on his show at times; they are from ppl who are now on H1B but were on L-1 in the past when they submitted the 0-tax returns.
[edit] Taxation status of H-1B workers
H-1B workers are legally required to pay the same taxes as any other US resident, including Social Security and Medicare.[2] Any person who spends more than 183 days in the US in a calendar year is a tax resident and is required to pay US taxes on their worldwide income. From the IRS perspective, it doesn't matter if that income is paid in the US or elsewhere. If an H-1B worker is given a living allowance, it is treated the same by the IRS as any other US resident. In some cases, H-1B workers pay higher taxes than a US citizen because they are not entitled to certain deductions (eg. head of household deduction amongst many others). Some H-1B workers are not eligible to receive any Social Security or Medicare benefits unless they are able to adjust status to that of permanent resident.[3] However, if their country of citizenship has a tax agreement with the United States, they are able to collect the Social Security they've earned even if they don't gain permanent residency there. Such agreements are negotiated between the United States and other countries, typically those which have comparable standards of living and public retirement systems
Lou knows it all; he knows it is the L-1 visa holders and not the H1B visa holders. But his viewers know what H1b is and have never heard of L1. So it helps him to cite H1B. He has shown "figures with 0 tax returns" on his show at times; they are from ppl who are now on H1B but were on L-1 in the past when they submitted the 0-tax returns.
more...
house 2011 F2000 CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES
mpadapa
09-26 10:14 AM
Yes, I would also love to see Sen Obama as President. I have no doubt in my mind that a Harvard graduate can get USA out of this economic turmoil. Obama presidency comes with a price for high-skilled immigrants because of the influence of Sen. Durbin on Sen. Obama on EB immigration issues. Past proposals from Sen. Durbin has scared the heck out of EB folks. If there is any changes to AC21 law like portability and H1 extensions, then many high-skilled immigrants might be sent packing because they cannot maintain status.
I have been in this country for almost 10 years and still have a long way to go before I get my green card. A Green Card system that was devised for a wait time of few years, has been clogged and is taking decades for people to get Green Cards. On top of it if the rules of the game is changed (like that proposed in CIR), I certainly don't want to get into this black hole queue again. If I have to start over my GC process again I would rather start it else where other than USA. I am strongly inclined to start my Canadian PR process if I don't see any process improvement in the GC process in the next year. Decades of waiting for a Green card has taken the edge out of my creativity and innovative spirit. It has causes me to compromise on professional ambitions. Even after 10 years of wait for this never ending ordeal, I still have to spend thousands of dollars every year on immigration expenses. I still cannot commit to buying a house and settling down because of the uncertain future due to Green Card limbo.
The luke warm reception to Lofgren bills by the Republican's have shown what we can expect if Sen. McCain becomes the President. Why did the so called maverick who supposedly supports immigration let the Lofgren bills die in the committees, while Republicans filibustered the bill in all the markup sessions. Sen. McCain has forgotten the word immigration after he has become the Republican nominee.
I have been in this country for almost 10 years and still have a long way to go before I get my green card. A Green Card system that was devised for a wait time of few years, has been clogged and is taking decades for people to get Green Cards. On top of it if the rules of the game is changed (like that proposed in CIR), I certainly don't want to get into this black hole queue again. If I have to start over my GC process again I would rather start it else where other than USA. I am strongly inclined to start my Canadian PR process if I don't see any process improvement in the GC process in the next year. Decades of waiting for a Green card has taken the edge out of my creativity and innovative spirit. It has causes me to compromise on professional ambitions. Even after 10 years of wait for this never ending ordeal, I still have to spend thousands of dollars every year on immigration expenses. I still cannot commit to buying a house and settling down because of the uncertain future due to Green Card limbo.
The luke warm reception to Lofgren bills by the Republican's have shown what we can expect if Sen. McCain becomes the President. Why did the so called maverick who supposedly supports immigration let the Lofgren bills die in the committees, while Republicans filibustered the bill in all the markup sessions. Sen. McCain has forgotten the word immigration after he has become the Republican nominee.
tattoo Daylight Savings Time starts
NeverEndingH1
12-17 03:18 PM
Your anger is justified, but what is your contribution to fix this? created a new IV handle TODAY to talk against a faith? So your other handle where you talk only about immigration will be clean? LOL!
Your are really a brave Indian!
This thread must continue.
It will be a slap to all the pseudo seculars on this forum. What will you do with your stupid greencards if your family back home is in turmoil. You guys just want to close your eyes from the problems facing you and think that by posting immigration realted posts and being politically correct in life you will become nice people. People do not wake up until the tragedy hits them close.
And there is nothing wrong to talk about religion and terror. It is because of not speaking, the rogue forces are now hurting everyone. And f you do not criticize the politicians who divide the country for votes, then if something wrong happens it is your fault because you chose to keep quiet.
I have seen past threads on this topic. First people tried hard to argue. But when they lost arguments and could not accept the truths, they started using abusive language. That showed their true character. These same people are going to try this tactics on this thread too. But this thread should continue.
Everyone has freedom of speech and IV should allow all opinions equally. I will be upset if this thread is closed.
Your are really a brave Indian!
This thread must continue.
It will be a slap to all the pseudo seculars on this forum. What will you do with your stupid greencards if your family back home is in turmoil. You guys just want to close your eyes from the problems facing you and think that by posting immigration realted posts and being politically correct in life you will become nice people. People do not wake up until the tragedy hits them close.
And there is nothing wrong to talk about religion and terror. It is because of not speaking, the rogue forces are now hurting everyone. And f you do not criticize the politicians who divide the country for votes, then if something wrong happens it is your fault because you chose to keep quiet.
I have seen past threads on this topic. First people tried hard to argue. But when they lost arguments and could not accept the truths, they started using abusive language. That showed their true character. These same people are going to try this tactics on this thread too. But this thread should continue.
Everyone has freedom of speech and IV should allow all opinions equally. I will be upset if this thread is closed.
more...
pictures 2011 F2000 CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES
satishku_2000
05-16 05:06 PM
Both are problems. The misuse of H-1B visa petitions prevent honest people from obtaining such a visa. That is not right. The issue of the illegal immigrants in this country is an ugly one as well. In my personal opinion, I do not believe any talks of amnesty should affect people with green card petitions pending. People given amnesty should go to the very back of the line and pay a serious fine on top of that.
Whether you like it or not legalization will affect all petetions . If you know enough about 245i provision you would understand how it affects every one legal or illegal or skilled or unskilled . Its not about when an undocumented person will get his GC , even making so many people eligible for filing applications itself will make things worse. Imagine how long it will take for issue of receipt notices for all these petetions . If you think legalization will not affect your green card petetion processing then you are simply dreaming.
Whether you like it or not legalization will affect all petetions . If you know enough about 245i provision you would understand how it affects every one legal or illegal or skilled or unskilled . Its not about when an undocumented person will get his GC , even making so many people eligible for filing applications itself will make things worse. Imagine how long it will take for issue of receipt notices for all these petetions . If you think legalization will not affect your green card petetion processing then you are simply dreaming.
dresses Daylight saving goes back on
pitha
04-08 10:04 PM
Could not agree with you more on this. They have systematically targeted people of particular races. This is nothing but high tech lynching. If these people are against H1 just come out a say that. But these hypocrites don�t have the balls to say that so they are targeting a particular race.
Imagine telling an Indian or Chinese doctor to treat only Indian and Chinese patients and not anybody else. That�s what this law is essentially doing to technology consultants. You can only work within the company but cannot do consulting. But if you are an American citizen you can do consulting, body shopping etc but you cannot do that with H1!!!!.
I didn�t have much of an opinion regarding a path to citizenship to illegals, I could not understand why Kennedy was spoiling the whole CIR by stressing on path to citizenship for illegals. Now I understand exactly why Kennedy and some others stress about path to citizenship for illegals. They don�t want the illegals to go through these same gotchas that they are trying to put us h1's through. Kennedy knows that unless the illegals are given a path to citizenship they will be constantly exploited like we are.
The people who are sponsoring this law are xenophobes masquerading as h1 reformers. Of all the groups who claim they are trying to reform h1 you can easily weed out the pretenders and the real ones. The only real one is IEEE-USA They know H1b is necessary but don�t agree with some exploitation going on with the system. So the IEEE-USA made some of these proposals
1. Give green cards to US educated students directly instead of H1
2. Delink H1 from employers which will make them more mobile and not subjected to exploitation by employers.
Now IEEE-USA was truly interested in reforming H1 that why they made the above proposals. Now these xenophobes who proposed this draconian law did not include any of these proposals, why? Because there objective is not to reform H1 but to throw us out and kill h1 based on an excuse called reforming h1. If they were really interested in reforming h1 they would have included the above proposals in the bill.
This bill will pass one way or the other. The only solution for us would be 485 without priority date. But do we have the will and more importantly the resources to pull that off. Other than the personal effort of the core team and 200 odd contributing members who do we have to count on. People atleast now contribute, even before we could take one step forward we have been pushed 2 steps backward. As logiclife has said its no longer just about green card our very own existence is being eliminated. Please contribute atleast now for your own good.
So all said and done, we may now go down based on a racially motivated bill. I am not sure what it takes to educate the law makers, I would like to see the senior personnel at IV and more analysts to look into what can be done on this bill.
Imagine telling an Indian or Chinese doctor to treat only Indian and Chinese patients and not anybody else. That�s what this law is essentially doing to technology consultants. You can only work within the company but cannot do consulting. But if you are an American citizen you can do consulting, body shopping etc but you cannot do that with H1!!!!.
I didn�t have much of an opinion regarding a path to citizenship to illegals, I could not understand why Kennedy was spoiling the whole CIR by stressing on path to citizenship for illegals. Now I understand exactly why Kennedy and some others stress about path to citizenship for illegals. They don�t want the illegals to go through these same gotchas that they are trying to put us h1's through. Kennedy knows that unless the illegals are given a path to citizenship they will be constantly exploited like we are.
The people who are sponsoring this law are xenophobes masquerading as h1 reformers. Of all the groups who claim they are trying to reform h1 you can easily weed out the pretenders and the real ones. The only real one is IEEE-USA They know H1b is necessary but don�t agree with some exploitation going on with the system. So the IEEE-USA made some of these proposals
1. Give green cards to US educated students directly instead of H1
2. Delink H1 from employers which will make them more mobile and not subjected to exploitation by employers.
Now IEEE-USA was truly interested in reforming H1 that why they made the above proposals. Now these xenophobes who proposed this draconian law did not include any of these proposals, why? Because there objective is not to reform H1 but to throw us out and kill h1 based on an excuse called reforming h1. If they were really interested in reforming h1 they would have included the above proposals in the bill.
This bill will pass one way or the other. The only solution for us would be 485 without priority date. But do we have the will and more importantly the resources to pull that off. Other than the personal effort of the core team and 200 odd contributing members who do we have to count on. People atleast now contribute, even before we could take one step forward we have been pushed 2 steps backward. As logiclife has said its no longer just about green card our very own existence is being eliminated. Please contribute atleast now for your own good.
So all said and done, we may now go down based on a racially motivated bill. I am not sure what it takes to educate the law makers, I would like to see the senior personnel at IV and more analysts to look into what can be done on this bill.
more...
makeup 2010 Daylight Savings Time
sanju
04-07 01:52 PM
Can there be a differentiation between extensions/renewals/company changes and new H1bs?
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
Here is why -
People who drafted and proposed this bill wants us all out PERIOD. They don't care if we are already on H1 waiting for our green card or if it is a new H1. The restrictions want us all OUT. Some people on this forum have elitist attitude (alias, I am not referring to you here, simply making a point after reading some of the post) because they either do not work for the consulting company or they are have Masters from a US Univ. Big deal�. If this passes, these people will elitist attitudes will soon realize what they would be up against.
IEEE-USA and Ron Hira et al say that they want to speed up the green card process but they oppose H1 visas. However, for whom do they want to speed up the green card process when they don�t even want people on H1 in US and are proposing a bill to systematically purge us all from US.
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
Here is why -
People who drafted and proposed this bill wants us all out PERIOD. They don't care if we are already on H1 waiting for our green card or if it is a new H1. The restrictions want us all OUT. Some people on this forum have elitist attitude (alias, I am not referring to you here, simply making a point after reading some of the post) because they either do not work for the consulting company or they are have Masters from a US Univ. Big deal�. If this passes, these people will elitist attitudes will soon realize what they would be up against.
IEEE-USA and Ron Hira et al say that they want to speed up the green card process but they oppose H1 visas. However, for whom do they want to speed up the green card process when they don�t even want people on H1 in US and are proposing a bill to systematically purge us all from US.
girlfriend with daylight savings we
gchopes
06-06 11:06 PM
Buying a house at or around the same rent and availing the 8K credit doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. GC or no..most have EAD (at least Jul 07 filers)..so if we lose our job we would be in a similar situation as a GC holder..having a form of work permit so employer doesnt have to sponsor us.
Uncle Sam is never going to give u 8K in the next 10 years that we will be waiting for getting our GC. So buy now before the rates get back to 7-8%.
Uncle Sam is never going to give u 8K in the next 10 years that we will be waiting for getting our GC. So buy now before the rates get back to 7-8%.
hairstyles justin bieber pics new 2011.
gcisadawg
01-06 04:10 PM
Refugee New,
When an innocent civilian is killed anywhere, it is scary and painful because we never know when others would be talking about our death as "another civilian gone". It is much more scary when the 'attack/counter-attack' show unfolds in the theater of middle east.
Arab league tried to bring a resolution in Security council and it was scuttled by US. Arab leaders try to act as if Palestinians are the only priority and portray the blame on others. But when all those western diplomats and leaders visit them, they are gifted with pearls, diamonds and all those precious stones and metals along with coveted contracts for their industries.
An Isreali leader can wage a war whenever he see's a need. If he wins, he would be a hero and win the next election. Otherwise he just goes home..
Thats it.....
An Arab leader is not like that. He needs to cling to his throne FOREVER and also safeguard it for his son's use. So, he is always beholden to
western countries and Western leaders know that. That's why they always have their way and you and I would see these drama unfold again and again.
It is a very high stakes game where the survival of the throne depends on keeping the Arab masses diverted and glued to Israel's actions.
I do not condone the massive use of Israel's arms in any way. But my point is, if the Arabs don't take care of Arab issues, then who will?
When an innocent civilian is killed anywhere, it is scary and painful because we never know when others would be talking about our death as "another civilian gone". It is much more scary when the 'attack/counter-attack' show unfolds in the theater of middle east.
Arab league tried to bring a resolution in Security council and it was scuttled by US. Arab leaders try to act as if Palestinians are the only priority and portray the blame on others. But when all those western diplomats and leaders visit them, they are gifted with pearls, diamonds and all those precious stones and metals along with coveted contracts for their industries.
An Isreali leader can wage a war whenever he see's a need. If he wins, he would be a hero and win the next election. Otherwise he just goes home..
Thats it.....
An Arab leader is not like that. He needs to cling to his throne FOREVER and also safeguard it for his son's use. So, he is always beholden to
western countries and Western leaders know that. That's why they always have their way and you and I would see these drama unfold again and again.
It is a very high stakes game where the survival of the throne depends on keeping the Arab masses diverted and glued to Israel's actions.
I do not condone the massive use of Israel's arms in any way. But my point is, if the Arabs don't take care of Arab issues, then who will?
nojoke
04-06 01:57 PM
Quoting from various sources
Slower building? �The demand for new homes in the Columbia region slowed significantly so far this year. Builders in Richland, Lexington and Kershaw counties saw a 33 percent drop to 1,082 single-family homes in the first three months of the year, according to the Home Builders Association of Greater Columbia.�
��We were expecting a downturn. I don�t know if I was expecting that much,� association executive director Earl McLeod said.�
��This is the worst I�ve ever seen it,� said builder David Beck, who has worked in the Columbia area for 17 years. �We�re just riding this to see what�s going to happen. I don�t think that it�s ever going to get back to the way it was.��
-----------------------------------------
��The residential real estate industry ripple effect is a blood bath,� said David Marino of Irving Hughes, which specializes in representing tenants. �When we got hit hard in 2001 through 2003 in the tech side, the residential real estate guys took a lot of that space. Today, there�s no recovering industry sector to offset� the decline from housing-related companies.�
--------------------------------------------------
From ABC 30. �That foreclosure crisis is hitting the Valley hard. Dozens of new homes will hit the auction block in Chowchilla this weekend.�
�This three bedroom, two bath home has a starting price of 280-thousand dollars. That�s about 120-thousand dollars less than its previous price. And this is just one of 43 discounted homes that will be up for auction on Sunday.�
�Project manager Ginger Hoggarth says this auction will be very different than those that sell foreclosed homes. �They are brand new homes and you do still get the one year warranty the builder would normally offer as well as a walk through.��
------------------------------------------
�When the owners default, it leads to repossession rather than foreclosure, and these defaults are not included in the foreclosure data, said Moises Loza, HAC executive director. �It�s happening all over,� Loza said.�
�Merced County, population 246,000, underwent a housing boom over the past few years that saw developments spring up on what used to be farmland, said Rep. Dennis Cardoza from Merced. Now, in towns like Atwater, housing values have dropped as much as 50 percent, the congressman said.�
�The skeletons of houses where construction halted when the market went bust stand across a development where houses that sold for $400,000 just three years ago are now going begging at half the price.�
--------------------------------------
The Mountain View Voice. �Market conditions and tight money are causing some builders to shut down large housing projects here, despite relatively firm prices and brisk sales of completed homes.�
�At least two large developments have been halted or dropped so far, after the builders were frightened off by negative signs in the housing market. Two others are rumored to face problems.�
�Just east of Highway 237 near the Sunnyvale border is evidence of the trouble. At 505 E. Evelyn Ave., a maze of driveways makes its way around the huge lot but leads up to only four model homes on the corner. The other 147 have yet to be built, and there have been no signs of construction for nearly a year.�
�Dave Best, the project manager at Shea Homes, denied rumors that Shea was having trouble getting bank loans for the project.�
��It�s not that we don�t have the money to build it, we just have decided not to put our efforts in that particular project,� he said. �When we determine the market has come back and it makes sense to build, we will continue.��
---------------------------------------------
The Sacramento Bee. �After all the intellectual assessments and recital of statistics about the subprime loan crisis, a woman from Chicago asked the question on the minds of many people in neighborhoods where so many have lost their homes. She asked the question in a setting far removed from those neighborhoods, at a California conference hosted earlier this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.�
��I want to know � how many people are going to jail?� asked Yevette Boutall, director of a community development fund that works in lower-income neighborhoods of Cook County.�
��That�s how angry people are in communities,� said Boutall. �They want to know how many people are going to go to jail, people who misled them and got away with it and earned money on their misery.��
�In San Francisco at the Fairmont Hotel, Boutall�s question went unanswered for the moment. But it struck a real note about people bearing the consequences of a time when mortgages and home prices went wild.�
�Speakers at the San Francisco Fed conference uniformly estimated that 2 million households will surrender their keys to lenders in the next year or two. That was their prediction despite all the voluntary lender-government agreements, the millions of dollars for new nonprofit loan counselors and the average $40,000 to $70,000 a lender loses with every foreclosure.�
��I wish I had better news for you in the short term,� said Tom Cunningham, director of the risk monitoring and analysis group at the Fed�s San Francisco bank.�
�He called the situation �unprecedented. We have never seen this before.��
�What seemed new at the Fed conference was how few major ideas there are to stop it. Speakers defined the problem, defined proposals to help assure it doesn�t happen again. But they could not be encouraging about solutions.�
�Speakers from the Fed, NeighborWorks America, the Center for Responsible Lending, Colorado Foreclosure Prevention Task Force and JPMorgan Chase talked about proposed legislation at state capitols and in Congress. They detailed efforts to reach out to struggling borrowers. But the big number � 2 million households during the next year or two � didn�t change.�
Slower building? �The demand for new homes in the Columbia region slowed significantly so far this year. Builders in Richland, Lexington and Kershaw counties saw a 33 percent drop to 1,082 single-family homes in the first three months of the year, according to the Home Builders Association of Greater Columbia.�
��We were expecting a downturn. I don�t know if I was expecting that much,� association executive director Earl McLeod said.�
��This is the worst I�ve ever seen it,� said builder David Beck, who has worked in the Columbia area for 17 years. �We�re just riding this to see what�s going to happen. I don�t think that it�s ever going to get back to the way it was.��
-----------------------------------------
��The residential real estate industry ripple effect is a blood bath,� said David Marino of Irving Hughes, which specializes in representing tenants. �When we got hit hard in 2001 through 2003 in the tech side, the residential real estate guys took a lot of that space. Today, there�s no recovering industry sector to offset� the decline from housing-related companies.�
--------------------------------------------------
From ABC 30. �That foreclosure crisis is hitting the Valley hard. Dozens of new homes will hit the auction block in Chowchilla this weekend.�
�This three bedroom, two bath home has a starting price of 280-thousand dollars. That�s about 120-thousand dollars less than its previous price. And this is just one of 43 discounted homes that will be up for auction on Sunday.�
�Project manager Ginger Hoggarth says this auction will be very different than those that sell foreclosed homes. �They are brand new homes and you do still get the one year warranty the builder would normally offer as well as a walk through.��
------------------------------------------
�When the owners default, it leads to repossession rather than foreclosure, and these defaults are not included in the foreclosure data, said Moises Loza, HAC executive director. �It�s happening all over,� Loza said.�
�Merced County, population 246,000, underwent a housing boom over the past few years that saw developments spring up on what used to be farmland, said Rep. Dennis Cardoza from Merced. Now, in towns like Atwater, housing values have dropped as much as 50 percent, the congressman said.�
�The skeletons of houses where construction halted when the market went bust stand across a development where houses that sold for $400,000 just three years ago are now going begging at half the price.�
--------------------------------------
The Mountain View Voice. �Market conditions and tight money are causing some builders to shut down large housing projects here, despite relatively firm prices and brisk sales of completed homes.�
�At least two large developments have been halted or dropped so far, after the builders were frightened off by negative signs in the housing market. Two others are rumored to face problems.�
�Just east of Highway 237 near the Sunnyvale border is evidence of the trouble. At 505 E. Evelyn Ave., a maze of driveways makes its way around the huge lot but leads up to only four model homes on the corner. The other 147 have yet to be built, and there have been no signs of construction for nearly a year.�
�Dave Best, the project manager at Shea Homes, denied rumors that Shea was having trouble getting bank loans for the project.�
��It�s not that we don�t have the money to build it, we just have decided not to put our efforts in that particular project,� he said. �When we determine the market has come back and it makes sense to build, we will continue.��
---------------------------------------------
The Sacramento Bee. �After all the intellectual assessments and recital of statistics about the subprime loan crisis, a woman from Chicago asked the question on the minds of many people in neighborhoods where so many have lost their homes. She asked the question in a setting far removed from those neighborhoods, at a California conference hosted earlier this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.�
��I want to know � how many people are going to jail?� asked Yevette Boutall, director of a community development fund that works in lower-income neighborhoods of Cook County.�
��That�s how angry people are in communities,� said Boutall. �They want to know how many people are going to go to jail, people who misled them and got away with it and earned money on their misery.��
�In San Francisco at the Fairmont Hotel, Boutall�s question went unanswered for the moment. But it struck a real note about people bearing the consequences of a time when mortgages and home prices went wild.�
�Speakers at the San Francisco Fed conference uniformly estimated that 2 million households will surrender their keys to lenders in the next year or two. That was their prediction despite all the voluntary lender-government agreements, the millions of dollars for new nonprofit loan counselors and the average $40,000 to $70,000 a lender loses with every foreclosure.�
��I wish I had better news for you in the short term,� said Tom Cunningham, director of the risk monitoring and analysis group at the Fed�s San Francisco bank.�
�He called the situation �unprecedented. We have never seen this before.��
�What seemed new at the Fed conference was how few major ideas there are to stop it. Speakers defined the problem, defined proposals to help assure it doesn�t happen again. But they could not be encouraging about solutions.�
�Speakers from the Fed, NeighborWorks America, the Center for Responsible Lending, Colorado Foreclosure Prevention Task Force and JPMorgan Chase talked about proposed legislation at state capitols and in Congress. They detailed efforts to reach out to struggling borrowers. But the big number � 2 million households during the next year or two � didn�t change.�
addsf345
12-18 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by razis123
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
by your explanation, what should hindus in india do? they were attacked, temples destroyed, forcefully converted, killed, lost land to islamic republics like pakistand and bangladesh??? Please read this on wikipedia...Thankfully not whole world thinks like you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and the Marxist historian Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-census times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in later works. Historians such as Will Durant contend that Islam spread through violence.[5][6] Sir Jadunath Sarkar contends that that several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects."[7] In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns.[citation needed] Hindus who converted to Islam however were not completely immune to persecution due to the Caste system among South Asian Muslims in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari.[8], where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes[9].
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
by your explanation, what should hindus in india do? they were attacked, temples destroyed, forcefully converted, killed, lost land to islamic republics like pakistand and bangladesh??? Please read this on wikipedia...Thankfully not whole world thinks like you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and the Marxist historian Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-census times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in later works. Historians such as Will Durant contend that Islam spread through violence.[5][6] Sir Jadunath Sarkar contends that that several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects."[7] In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns.[citation needed] Hindus who converted to Islam however were not completely immune to persecution due to the Caste system among South Asian Muslims in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari.[8], where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes[9].
0 comments:
Post a Comment