bkarnik
11-06 01:14 PM
Friends:
What I have done below is present a couple of races that are interesting to follow tomorrow from the immigration perspective. This list is not all inclusive and only includes the House races that have been listed on the Cook Political Report (www.cookpolitical.com) as competitive. I went through the list and compared that with the representatives on the "House Immigration Reform Caucus" as chaired by Rep. Tom Tancredo. Here are the results:
The 10 following races are considered as toss-ups.
J.D.Hayworth AZ-05 LOST
Marilyn Musgrave CO-04 WON
Geoff Davis KY-04 WON
Gil Gutknecht MN-01 [/B]LOST[/B]
Charlie Bass NH-02 LOST
John Sweeney NY-20 LOST
Charles Taylor NC-11 LOST
Jean Scmidt OH-02 POSS.WIN
Thelma Drake VA-02 WON
Barbara Cubin WY-AL TOO CLOSE TO CALL, leads by 822 votes
The following 6 races are considered lean republican
Rick Renzi AZ-01 WON
John Doolittle CA-04 WON
Brian Bilbray CA-50 WON
Hefley (OPEN SEAT) CO-05 (WON by another GOP (Lamborn))
Otter ID-01 (WON by another GOP (Sali))
Randy Kuhl NY-29 WON
The following 5 races are considered likely republican
Ric Keller FL-08 WON
Bilirakis (OPEN SEAT) FL-09 (WON by the son, another GOP Bilirakis)
Jeb Bradley NH-01 LOST
Robin Hayes NC-08 (TOO CLOSE TO CALL, Hayes leads bu 468 votes)
Pat Tiberi OH-12 WON
The following one race is considered lean democratic
Bob Beauprez (OPEN SEAT) CO-07 WON by DEMOCRAT
Bottom line: The current house immigration caucus boasts 104 members. Of which, 4 will be gone come January 2007. From the remaining, IF all the tossups were to go democratic, the list would come down to 90 members.
I will update the thread with the final results Nov. 7th.
Nov. 7th update: As seen above, from the original 104, the list is now down to 95 members. With the House majority in the Democratic hands, this loss in the caucus is likely to be magnified since they are now the minority in the minority.
What I have done below is present a couple of races that are interesting to follow tomorrow from the immigration perspective. This list is not all inclusive and only includes the House races that have been listed on the Cook Political Report (www.cookpolitical.com) as competitive. I went through the list and compared that with the representatives on the "House Immigration Reform Caucus" as chaired by Rep. Tom Tancredo. Here are the results:
The 10 following races are considered as toss-ups.
J.D.Hayworth AZ-05 LOST
Marilyn Musgrave CO-04 WON
Geoff Davis KY-04 WON
Gil Gutknecht MN-01 [/B]LOST[/B]
Charlie Bass NH-02 LOST
John Sweeney NY-20 LOST
Charles Taylor NC-11 LOST
Jean Scmidt OH-02 POSS.WIN
Thelma Drake VA-02 WON
Barbara Cubin WY-AL TOO CLOSE TO CALL, leads by 822 votes
The following 6 races are considered lean republican
Rick Renzi AZ-01 WON
John Doolittle CA-04 WON
Brian Bilbray CA-50 WON
Hefley (OPEN SEAT) CO-05 (WON by another GOP (Lamborn))
Otter ID-01 (WON by another GOP (Sali))
Randy Kuhl NY-29 WON
The following 5 races are considered likely republican
Ric Keller FL-08 WON
Bilirakis (OPEN SEAT) FL-09 (WON by the son, another GOP Bilirakis)
Jeb Bradley NH-01 LOST
Robin Hayes NC-08 (TOO CLOSE TO CALL, Hayes leads bu 468 votes)
Pat Tiberi OH-12 WON
The following one race is considered lean democratic
Bob Beauprez (OPEN SEAT) CO-07 WON by DEMOCRAT
Bottom line: The current house immigration caucus boasts 104 members. Of which, 4 will be gone come January 2007. From the remaining, IF all the tossups were to go democratic, the list would come down to 90 members.
I will update the thread with the final results Nov. 7th.
Nov. 7th update: As seen above, from the original 104, the list is now down to 95 members. With the House majority in the Democratic hands, this loss in the caucus is likely to be magnified since they are now the minority in the minority.
wallpaper hayden panettiere golden
gc28262
02-16 10:34 AM
gc28262,
I don't know how you said this ? But, I call it's a height of ignorance at its best. Dude, wake up to the reality world. You asked how many companies you know ? I bet, It should be more than 90 - 95% of all the companies out there.
Why don't you tell us the total number of consulting companies you know in the first place.
Then tell us how many of those are doing illegal stuff etc ( if you have real information)
Then we will see what percentage of the total companies are bad.
Before arriving at a figure 90%-95%, please provide us the numbers. Be truthful.
I don't know how you said this ? But, I call it's a height of ignorance at its best. Dude, wake up to the reality world. You asked how many companies you know ? I bet, It should be more than 90 - 95% of all the companies out there.
Why don't you tell us the total number of consulting companies you know in the first place.
Then tell us how many of those are doing illegal stuff etc ( if you have real information)
Then we will see what percentage of the total companies are bad.
Before arriving at a figure 90%-95%, please provide us the numbers. Be truthful.
gcnotfiledyet
02-24 06:41 PM
Did AILA actually file a lawsuit?
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_lit_visab.shtml
http://www.murthy.com/ailf_lawsuit.html#Update6
They obtained authorization to file the lawsuit. They had it prepared to file and received good response from possible plaintiffs. It was possibility of good strong case by AILA that deterred USCIS to reverse the decision without a formal lawsuit. This is exactly what we need to further our cause. USCIS could care less about other petty tricks. They will only understand language of laws/court. For that we need congress to pass laws favoring us.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_lit_visab.shtml
http://www.murthy.com/ailf_lawsuit.html#Update6
They obtained authorization to file the lawsuit. They had it prepared to file and received good response from possible plaintiffs. It was possibility of good strong case by AILA that deterred USCIS to reverse the decision without a formal lawsuit. This is exactly what we need to further our cause. USCIS could care less about other petty tricks. They will only understand language of laws/court. For that we need congress to pass laws favoring us.
2011 Hayden Panettiere Golden
bobyal
08-11 06:13 AM
deleted
more...
Macaca
08-14 08:25 PM
By March 2007, and using that same calculation, USCIS had a backlog of 1,275,795. (page 11)
In last year’s annual report (at pp. 6-11), the Ombudsman analyzed USCIS’ redefinition of its backlog. That analysis is not repeated here, as the backlog redefinition is unchanged. The current definition continues to consider “backlogged” only the cases pending after subtracting those cases not yet ripe for adjudication, “where even if the application or petition were approved today, a benefit could not be conferred for months or years to come.
[Unripe cases are] excluded from the number of cases in the backlog but remain in the pending.”
Pending Cases Not Included in "Backlog" is 1,316,740 (Fig 1, 2nd column, page 14)
Total Pending = Backlogged + Unripe = 1,275,795 (page 11) + 1,316,740 (Figure 1, page 14) = 2,592,535 (as of March 2007)
So as per USCIS a total of 600,000 applications were pending until June. We can add another 600,000 for july-aug... total now 1.2 Million
Firstly, it is not possible that pending = backlogged + unripe = 600K because there were 2.5M+ pending cases (as explained above) in March 2007. Thus, 600K should be pending EB cases or total backlogged cases.
Secondly, it is unlikely (although possible) that there are 600K pending EB cases because this means that there are 2M family cases.
Thirdly, it is not possible to have 600K total backlogged (= EB + Family + ...) as explained in previous post. Thus, assume 400K (out of 1.3M+) unripe EB cases also. So EB total becomes 1.6M.
Fourthly, consider cases stuck in labor after Aug 17 2007.
In last year’s annual report (at pp. 6-11), the Ombudsman analyzed USCIS’ redefinition of its backlog. That analysis is not repeated here, as the backlog redefinition is unchanged. The current definition continues to consider “backlogged” only the cases pending after subtracting those cases not yet ripe for adjudication, “where even if the application or petition were approved today, a benefit could not be conferred for months or years to come.
[Unripe cases are] excluded from the number of cases in the backlog but remain in the pending.”
Pending Cases Not Included in "Backlog" is 1,316,740 (Fig 1, 2nd column, page 14)
Total Pending = Backlogged + Unripe = 1,275,795 (page 11) + 1,316,740 (Figure 1, page 14) = 2,592,535 (as of March 2007)
So as per USCIS a total of 600,000 applications were pending until June. We can add another 600,000 for july-aug... total now 1.2 Million
Firstly, it is not possible that pending = backlogged + unripe = 600K because there were 2.5M+ pending cases (as explained above) in March 2007. Thus, 600K should be pending EB cases or total backlogged cases.
Secondly, it is unlikely (although possible) that there are 600K pending EB cases because this means that there are 2M family cases.
Thirdly, it is not possible to have 600K total backlogged (= EB + Family + ...) as explained in previous post. Thus, assume 400K (out of 1.3M+) unripe EB cases also. So EB total becomes 1.6M.
Fourthly, consider cases stuck in labor after Aug 17 2007.
leoindiano
02-23 09:10 AM
There you go again....Time Out....dont fight...
Just say "Jai HO !!!"
It is evident that indian muslims are progressing to new heights.....This is definitely fresh air for indians living in USA in tough economic times.....
Just say "Jai HO !!!"
It is evident that indian muslims are progressing to new heights.....This is definitely fresh air for indians living in USA in tough economic times.....
more...
rakesh_one
03-19 02:57 PM
Unless all of the 10,000 immigrants are going to bring money from their respective countries to buy homes, it is not going to change anything signficantly. You are proposing to take the money that is in the system, i.e asking banks to lend you money. The current crisis is credit crunch. Banks dont have money. All they have is mortgage bonds. There are no takers of these bonds. They are becoming junk. So, if any money from outside flows in, there will be some difference.
2010 hayden panettiere golden
titu1972
07-19 01:36 PM
Delivered on July 2 10:20am
-------------------------
EB2 - PD 07/2005
I-140 Approved 04/19/2006
I-485 - RD??????
-------------------------
EB2 - PD 07/2005
I-140 Approved 04/19/2006
I-485 - RD??????
more...
singhsa3
12-12 10:20 AM
Wonderful idea!!!
But we may need to get some permits and Permission from the union (Sweepers Union of America or whatever it is called)
How About Sweeping Roads In Nyc ..on Wall Street, In Front Of Nyse And Nasdaq And Also In Ffreont Of All Tv Stations ...will Get Lots Of Media Attention ...
But we may need to get some permits and Permission from the union (Sweepers Union of America or whatever it is called)
How About Sweeping Roads In Nyc ..on Wall Street, In Front Of Nyse And Nasdaq And Also In Ffreont Of All Tv Stations ...will Get Lots Of Media Attention ...
hair house Hayden Panettiere#39;s Sexy hayden panettiere golden globes 09.
eeezzz
01-15 05:28 PM
Yes, you are right. Cases are assigned (not picked), which is done in order they were physically received at the center they are being assigned at. If PD is not current, case is put aside and next file is considered. Due to huge filings in July'07, resultant chaos, and shuffling cases around between centers before entering them in the system, if your file is way below in line (eventhough you deligently made sure to have it with USCIS on July 2, AND your PD is current), no one is going to look at your file, until your turn (in order of final data entry) reaches.
If I recall correctly, I saw many posts about people called to ask about their 485 case status. And many got response as NC is cleared, waiting to be assigned to a IO and/or waiting for visa number.
That is why I think when you are current, you are then have a chance to be assigned to an IO, and then be able to get a visa number. I don't think cases have been assigned to IO when CIS receive your I-485 form. And if you look at 's data, many of old PD have been approved, even if their RD is 2008. So I think RD only plays a rule as control how many people can do SR. It is not matter about they will process your case if you are within processing time at all. When your PD is current, you have a chance.
On Ron's website, he talks about this move in Feb. He thinks there's not enough cases processed(not meet VO's goal) for EB2 China and India, that is why dates move forward. For EB-3, CIS meets VO's goal for the month so VO doesn't advance the date.
If I recall correctly, I saw many posts about people called to ask about their 485 case status. And many got response as NC is cleared, waiting to be assigned to a IO and/or waiting for visa number.
That is why I think when you are current, you are then have a chance to be assigned to an IO, and then be able to get a visa number. I don't think cases have been assigned to IO when CIS receive your I-485 form. And if you look at 's data, many of old PD have been approved, even if their RD is 2008. So I think RD only plays a rule as control how many people can do SR. It is not matter about they will process your case if you are within processing time at all. When your PD is current, you have a chance.
On Ron's website, he talks about this move in Feb. He thinks there's not enough cases processed(not meet VO's goal) for EB2 China and India, that is why dates move forward. For EB-3, CIS meets VO's goal for the month so VO doesn't advance the date.
more...
americandesi
08-16 01:41 PM
I personally think that 6 month rule-of-thumb is nonsense.
AC21 clearly states you can switch employers 6 months after your green card application has been pending. On what legal basis could USCIS then come back and deny citizenship to anyone for switching employers too soon after getting their green card?
I'd really be interested to hear if someone has specific knowledge of a case where someone had their citizenship denied due to switching companies too soon after getting their green card.
Refer http://www.murthy.com/pr_thngs.html and search for the following
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As "a_yaja" said, "AC21 applies only if your GC has not been approved. You cannont invoke AC21 after your GC has been approved."
AC21 clearly states you can switch employers 6 months after your green card application has been pending. On what legal basis could USCIS then come back and deny citizenship to anyone for switching employers too soon after getting their green card?
I'd really be interested to hear if someone has specific knowledge of a case where someone had their citizenship denied due to switching companies too soon after getting their green card.
Refer http://www.murthy.com/pr_thngs.html and search for the following
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As "a_yaja" said, "AC21 applies only if your GC has not been approved. You cannont invoke AC21 after your GC has been approved."
hot (Getty Images)more pics Hayden
immigrant2007
07-01 11:04 AM
Do you really agree with multi-national managers(via L1A). This is the area wherein the interpretation is pretty loose. If you dissect EB1 data you would find that EB1C used bulk of it except for this year due to bad economy and tightening of screws. There should be some very clearly defined guidelines for EB1-C, somebody being an onsite coordinator or managing 5 people should not be eligible. This category should be reserved for those who are managing at least 100 people or control business in several millions. I agree that EB1 should be just for the exceptional.
I support you, most of the guys L1A/Bdon't deserve to be in EB1. If L1 (especially the offshoring companies) are that good then all of us are eligible for honorary greencards....
the whole L1 rule for GC and L1 visa is just exploited to its limit.
I support you, most of the guys L1A/Bdon't deserve to be in EB1. If L1 (especially the offshoring companies) are that good then all of us are eligible for honorary greencards....
the whole L1 rule for GC and L1 visa is just exploited to its limit.
more...
house Hayden Panettiere Short Hair
texanguy
01-14 01:57 PM
H1b and Green cards are allowed to have out of country stays. so if you are out of country for less than six months, it may still be considered as continuous stay. the intent of writing the word "continuous" is to declare that at any point, the immigrant had no intentions to leave the country and relinquish his immigrant status. for the legal immigrant, that should be acceptable.
Looks like it is for illegal immigrants as it asks for continous stay. Most legals would not have stayed continously as they might went out of country for vacation
Looks like it is for illegal immigrants as it asks for continous stay. Most legals would not have stayed continously as they might went out of country for vacation
tattoo Panettiere showed up to the
chanduv23
05-29 02:02 PM
I would further say, what is the difference between you and anti-immigrants in this matter ? You are saying that certain class of people should be kept out of the job market and you have your reasons. Since you are probably US educated, you want those who are non-US educated out of competition. Do not give me the BS reason that those with non-US education are the only ones that fake their resume. As far as faking the resume goes, or bragging goes, its up to the individual. It could be anyone, including Presidents that fake resumes or pad it with embellishments.
The anti-immigrants are saying that they were born here so those who were not born here should be kept of out the job market to reduce competition (and spur wage inflation, which they would call fair wages, but its really wage inflation, the kind that drowned GM and Chrysler).
Would it not behoove you to say that the decision of who should be hired and who shouldn't be hired must be deferred to the employers and not the Government or any other special interest ? As an employer, are they not the most capable party here to make that decision and evaluate their options ? Shouldn't people who create wealth (employers, businesses) have the prerogative to decide who they want to hire to help them create wealth ?
Logiclife - I totally agree with your opinions.
Me and my wife both are professionals - in different fields - none from ivyleague - we decided not to force our kid into something but to allow her to carve out her own career through her interests. We do not aim for sky , but definitely have vision to grow and become successfulaand strive towards it.
From all those people who went to school with me - those ivyleagures are still in jobs - kinda secure jobs and they also secure their jobs - one of our C grade classmate who was average mediocre and just did a BA degree is now a very successful entrepreneur - he is big time into infrastructure development and also sponsers a team in IPL
While i
The anti-immigrants are saying that they were born here so those who were not born here should be kept of out the job market to reduce competition (and spur wage inflation, which they would call fair wages, but its really wage inflation, the kind that drowned GM and Chrysler).
Would it not behoove you to say that the decision of who should be hired and who shouldn't be hired must be deferred to the employers and not the Government or any other special interest ? As an employer, are they not the most capable party here to make that decision and evaluate their options ? Shouldn't people who create wealth (employers, businesses) have the prerogative to decide who they want to hire to help them create wealth ?
Logiclife - I totally agree with your opinions.
Me and my wife both are professionals - in different fields - none from ivyleague - we decided not to force our kid into something but to allow her to carve out her own career through her interests. We do not aim for sky , but definitely have vision to grow and become successfulaand strive towards it.
From all those people who went to school with me - those ivyleagures are still in jobs - kinda secure jobs and they also secure their jobs - one of our C grade classmate who was average mediocre and just did a BA degree is now a very successful entrepreneur - he is big time into infrastructure development and also sponsers a team in IPL
While i
more...
pictures Hayden Panettiere
Cheran
02-23 09:52 AM
What is your issue? All he said was that Rahman was better in other movies and how do you link that with terrorists? I guess you get cheap laughter by igniting some stupid issues like this. All we need is people like you to be the spokesperson for immigrationvoice.
Let me guess, you are a pakistani terrorist. Now you are jealous that how come an Indian muslim win 2 oscars? How will you give out your hateful message to other pakistanis terrorists that indian muslims are being torchured, so you have to "save" indian muslims. Too bad, no pakistani got an oscar. I know why, because the terror capital of the world is going down the drain pretty fast.
.
Let me guess, you are a pakistani terrorist. Now you are jealous that how come an Indian muslim win 2 oscars? How will you give out your hateful message to other pakistanis terrorists that indian muslims are being torchured, so you have to "save" indian muslims. Too bad, no pakistani got an oscar. I know why, because the terror capital of the world is going down the drain pretty fast.
.
dresses Toisaalta Hayden Panettieren
traveler07
09-25 09:11 PM
I fell into this website, just trying to get some information from people that have experience with immigration issues.
I run a small consulting business, and I have found an ideal candidate to work for me. He is a foreign national, and is currently in this country on an H1-B visa.
What requirements do I need to comply with to qualify to sponsor this person to work with my company?
I have tried to look up information on the government website, but it is frustrating. Am I asking the wrong questions?
thanks for any information you can help me with.
I run a small consulting business, and I have found an ideal candidate to work for me. He is a foreign national, and is currently in this country on an H1-B visa.
What requirements do I need to comply with to qualify to sponsor this person to work with my company?
I have tried to look up information on the government website, but it is frustrating. Am I asking the wrong questions?
thanks for any information you can help me with.
more...
makeup hayden panettiere golden
qasleuth
05-02 02:37 PM
Ok , it may not be right thread to discuss everything here... but
What I am saying is, instead of spending N years waiting for GC, I guess we lead better life elsewhere!
Where else, in our home country... but that reminds me of descremenation again!!
So I thought of place which is not in high demand yet... africa...!
I always believe in making things happen, in stead of waiting for someone doing it for me!!
hebbar77,
Firstly, you are making an assumption that everybody here is from India. Secondly, justifying your statement by giving simplified explanation would not suffice. You suggested buying a country in Africa alluding that countries are up for sale which is quite insulting as suggested by an earlier poster.
What I am saying is, instead of spending N years waiting for GC, I guess we lead better life elsewhere!
Where else, in our home country... but that reminds me of descremenation again!!
So I thought of place which is not in high demand yet... africa...!
I always believe in making things happen, in stead of waiting for someone doing it for me!!
hebbar77,
Firstly, you are making an assumption that everybody here is from India. Secondly, justifying your statement by giving simplified explanation would not suffice. You suggested buying a country in Africa alluding that countries are up for sale which is quite insulting as suggested by an earlier poster.
girlfriend hayden panettiere golden
jsb
03-17 03:06 PM
Have you talked to lawyers with arguments you have mentioned here? Do you think there is a strong legal ground for success? For all five "questions" you have asked, there is legal backing. Law sees legal grounds, not sentiments, which seem to be the prime content of what you have stated.
hairstyles The 64th Annual Golden Globe
dixie
08-01 01:48 PM
DISCLAIMER: SPECIFIC TO THE INDIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM
I am sorry but I disagree with the "best among the best" comment. To equate success in the IIT entrance exam to being the best is a mistake. Success in the entrance exams to those Insititutions comes from focus and hard work. This does not necessarily mean that the people who go there are the best. They ARE definitely the best at preparing for the exam.
Keeping debates on "education standards" aside, from a middle-school student's perspective its definitely not easy to get into a decent higher educational institute in India; what with reservations and the enormous competition . We cannot deny that higher education opportunities are definitely better(though more expensive) in the developed countries.
I am sorry but I disagree with the "best among the best" comment. To equate success in the IIT entrance exam to being the best is a mistake. Success in the entrance exams to those Insititutions comes from focus and hard work. This does not necessarily mean that the people who go there are the best. They ARE definitely the best at preparing for the exam.
Keeping debates on "education standards" aside, from a middle-school student's perspective its definitely not easy to get into a decent higher educational institute in India; what with reservations and the enormous competition . We cannot deny that higher education opportunities are definitely better(though more expensive) in the developed countries.
ramus
06-28 05:36 PM
I think you need all of them but I am not 100 % sure..
In cause you don't get experience certificare Even if you get letter from somebody you worked with will work..
Hi everybody,
I will post here my query about I-140 because I didn't want to start a new thread only for my question.
It's still regarding I-140 application.....I wanted to ask you if you need all employment letters that are written on Labor Ceritificate..or is it enough to submit only a few not all the employment letters for every job that was written on Labor certificate?
How is it working?
I wwould highly apprecite your help.
Thank you in advance.
In cause you don't get experience certificare Even if you get letter from somebody you worked with will work..
Hi everybody,
I will post here my query about I-140 because I didn't want to start a new thread only for my question.
It's still regarding I-140 application.....I wanted to ask you if you need all employment letters that are written on Labor Ceritificate..or is it enough to submit only a few not all the employment letters for every job that was written on Labor certificate?
How is it working?
I wwould highly apprecite your help.
Thank you in advance.
coopheal
07-19 12:14 PM
Has any one got the recipt yet??
No comments:
Post a Comment