Macaca
12-27 06:27 PM
A Who's Who of Indian sleaze
Leaks of tapped phone conversations reveal how corruption propels India's booming economy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/26/india-sleaze-corruption-economy)
By Praful Bidwai | The Guardian
The leak of hundreds of nearly 6,000 tapped telephone conversations between corporate lobbyist and British citizen Niira Radia and many of India's politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats and journalists has shocked the country. The tapes reveal the lobbying to assign the telecommunications portfolio to the politician A Raja, who sold mobile telephone licences at throwaway prices to favour particular companies, at an estimated loss of $12bn to $38bn to the exchequer � the highest-ever figure for an Indian corruption scandal.
Even more important, though, are the corporate lobbyists' attempts to influence government policies in a host of areas; to rig cabinet appointments; and to plant stories with high-profile journalists in which support for parochial business interests would be dressed up as "the national interest".
The tapes' dramatis personae read like a Who's Who of India, but despite the personalities involved attention is now turning to the larger story � the influence of business over politics, and lobbyists' intrusion into policy-making on scarce natural resources, licensing of industries, and "regulatory capture". Suddenly, the inner workings of government, the compromised roles of high officials and the limitless venality of businessmen stand exposed to the harsh light of public scrutiny.
The Radia tapes are the tip of the iceberg. They shock because they provide the clinching evidence for a few of the many recent scandals, including the astronomical corruption in contracts for the Commonwealth Games; mining and metallurgical projects that blatantly violate environmental regulations; corporate land grabs in the guise of export promotion zones; the razing of virgin tropical rainforest to make way for opulent housing; and the ripping up of mountain ranges to build dams.
Scandals and corruption are not new to India. Businessmen have long milked the exchequer through tax breaks, rigged licensing procedures and fraud. What is new is the neoliberal policy context, the quality and intimacy of business-politician-bureaucrat collusion bordering on a corporate takeover of government, and the growing plunder of public money. The thinktank Global Financial Integrity estimates that rich Indians have spirited abroad the equivalent of half of India's GDP over six decades. Illicit flows have greatly increased since the economy was liberalised in 1991. The notorious (often exaggerated) excesses of the "licence-permit raj" of the 1960s and 1970s pale beside the new crony-capitalism.
Sleaze is integral to India's growth, and one of its main drivers. The growth is skewed. Agriculture has stagnated, per capita food consumption has fallen, 200,000 indebted farmers have committed suicide. Industry has grown sluggishly and only forms about one-fourth of GDP. But services have boomed. The highest growth sectors are property, construction, telecoms and road transport � not IT. Capital accumulates through the privatisation of natural resources and dispossession of whole communities. In all these sectors, and in mining and metallurgical production, what counts is privileged access to natural resources and the national commons, most critically land, which is at the core of the government's discretionary powers.
"Liberalisation" has recast discretionary powers and allowed a new business-politics relationship to develop. Behind each of India's new billionaires is political patronage. Here lies the underbelly of India's growth: using crony-capitalist influence to corner mining leases, property development rights, construction permits and airwaves. It is not the free market, but manipulation and distortion, that propels growth.
One part of the seamy side of India's growth is well-known: persistent poverty, social bondage and economic servitude. The Radia tapes highlight another: sleaze and collusive business-politics relations that mock transparency, accountability, democratic policy-making and the public interest.
Leaks of tapped phone conversations reveal how corruption propels India's booming economy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/26/india-sleaze-corruption-economy)
By Praful Bidwai | The Guardian
The leak of hundreds of nearly 6,000 tapped telephone conversations between corporate lobbyist and British citizen Niira Radia and many of India's politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats and journalists has shocked the country. The tapes reveal the lobbying to assign the telecommunications portfolio to the politician A Raja, who sold mobile telephone licences at throwaway prices to favour particular companies, at an estimated loss of $12bn to $38bn to the exchequer � the highest-ever figure for an Indian corruption scandal.
Even more important, though, are the corporate lobbyists' attempts to influence government policies in a host of areas; to rig cabinet appointments; and to plant stories with high-profile journalists in which support for parochial business interests would be dressed up as "the national interest".
The tapes' dramatis personae read like a Who's Who of India, but despite the personalities involved attention is now turning to the larger story � the influence of business over politics, and lobbyists' intrusion into policy-making on scarce natural resources, licensing of industries, and "regulatory capture". Suddenly, the inner workings of government, the compromised roles of high officials and the limitless venality of businessmen stand exposed to the harsh light of public scrutiny.
The Radia tapes are the tip of the iceberg. They shock because they provide the clinching evidence for a few of the many recent scandals, including the astronomical corruption in contracts for the Commonwealth Games; mining and metallurgical projects that blatantly violate environmental regulations; corporate land grabs in the guise of export promotion zones; the razing of virgin tropical rainforest to make way for opulent housing; and the ripping up of mountain ranges to build dams.
Scandals and corruption are not new to India. Businessmen have long milked the exchequer through tax breaks, rigged licensing procedures and fraud. What is new is the neoliberal policy context, the quality and intimacy of business-politician-bureaucrat collusion bordering on a corporate takeover of government, and the growing plunder of public money. The thinktank Global Financial Integrity estimates that rich Indians have spirited abroad the equivalent of half of India's GDP over six decades. Illicit flows have greatly increased since the economy was liberalised in 1991. The notorious (often exaggerated) excesses of the "licence-permit raj" of the 1960s and 1970s pale beside the new crony-capitalism.
Sleaze is integral to India's growth, and one of its main drivers. The growth is skewed. Agriculture has stagnated, per capita food consumption has fallen, 200,000 indebted farmers have committed suicide. Industry has grown sluggishly and only forms about one-fourth of GDP. But services have boomed. The highest growth sectors are property, construction, telecoms and road transport � not IT. Capital accumulates through the privatisation of natural resources and dispossession of whole communities. In all these sectors, and in mining and metallurgical production, what counts is privileged access to natural resources and the national commons, most critically land, which is at the core of the government's discretionary powers.
"Liberalisation" has recast discretionary powers and allowed a new business-politics relationship to develop. Behind each of India's new billionaires is political patronage. Here lies the underbelly of India's growth: using crony-capitalist influence to corner mining leases, property development rights, construction permits and airwaves. It is not the free market, but manipulation and distortion, that propels growth.
One part of the seamy side of India's growth is well-known: persistent poverty, social bondage and economic servitude. The Radia tapes highlight another: sleaze and collusive business-politics relations that mock transparency, accountability, democratic policy-making and the public interest.
wallpaper Kobe Bryant#39;s wife Vanessa
SunnySurya
08-05 12:12 PM
With all due respect, just because few people don't like it is no reasons for getting this thread closed..
This thread is causing unhealthy division between EB2 and EB3. This thread should be closed and people should concentrate on the call campaign instead on fighting each other.
This thread is causing unhealthy division between EB2 and EB3. This thread should be closed and people should concentrate on the call campaign instead on fighting each other.
NKR
08-05 08:37 AM
The said person should have been aware of what he or she was getting into. Blaming your hardship on other people and trying to get mileage out of it is hardly an honest way............would you agree?
Were you aware of each and every rule in the immigration law book before you applied for GC?. Did you foresee this delay before you got into this mess?.
Shouldn't you have been aware of this option of EB3 people converting to EB2 and accounted for that when you filed your GC?. Aren;t you blaming your hardship on EB3 people and getting mileage out of it?.
Were you aware of each and every rule in the immigration law book before you applied for GC?. Did you foresee this delay before you got into this mess?.
Shouldn't you have been aware of this option of EB3 people converting to EB2 and accounted for that when you filed your GC?. Aren;t you blaming your hardship on EB3 people and getting mileage out of it?.
2011 kobe bryant wife. kobe bryant
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
more...
jung.lee
04-12 11:52 PM
:eek:I don't think it's good time to buy in CA.. Just wait for option ARM reset and market will drop more.
I agree with this statement!
See this chart?
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/adjustable-rate-mortgage-reset-schedule.jpg
Most of the higher priced properties purchased in 2003 - 2006 in the coastal areas of California were purchased using Option ARMs. I was talking to an acquaintance last week who was in the loan broking business in Orange County (had to switch careers since then) who told me that over 90% of several hundreds of loans that he was involved with were Option ARMs and very little 3% to no cash down.
He also said that all the loan guidelines are so strict now that a majority of those who took these dicey loans will not be able to refinance when the payments reset in the next 3-4 years.
As an example he said he knew someone who had bought a $750k house with 3% down ($22.5k), with an Option ARM at 2% interest only with negative amortization of unpaid interest (i.e. principal payment and a portion ofthe interest payment was "Optional" in the first 3 years). This interest even with today's low interest environment will reset to LIBOR (http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html)+ 3.75%. Furthermore, this will reset to a "fully amortizing loan", i.e. paying principal is no longer an option.
So can you imagine trying to refinance this house in two years, when it has declined say conservatively 20% in value down to $600k, and one still owes the full amount of $750k+ unpaid principal on the original loan? Right now lenders are asking for a minimum of 20% down and financing no more than 80% of current appraised value. In bubble markets such as ours in CA, they are asking to finance no more than 75% of appraised value in some cases. So all in all, these "homeowners" are pretty much screwed. Experienced observers are positing that there will be increase in foreclosures and walkaways.
For those who rented and saved, there will be lots of choices in the best areas. Just be patient!
I agree with this statement!
See this chart?
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/adjustable-rate-mortgage-reset-schedule.jpg
Most of the higher priced properties purchased in 2003 - 2006 in the coastal areas of California were purchased using Option ARMs. I was talking to an acquaintance last week who was in the loan broking business in Orange County (had to switch careers since then) who told me that over 90% of several hundreds of loans that he was involved with were Option ARMs and very little 3% to no cash down.
He also said that all the loan guidelines are so strict now that a majority of those who took these dicey loans will not be able to refinance when the payments reset in the next 3-4 years.
As an example he said he knew someone who had bought a $750k house with 3% down ($22.5k), with an Option ARM at 2% interest only with negative amortization of unpaid interest (i.e. principal payment and a portion ofthe interest payment was "Optional" in the first 3 years). This interest even with today's low interest environment will reset to LIBOR (http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html)+ 3.75%. Furthermore, this will reset to a "fully amortizing loan", i.e. paying principal is no longer an option.
So can you imagine trying to refinance this house in two years, when it has declined say conservatively 20% in value down to $600k, and one still owes the full amount of $750k+ unpaid principal on the original loan? Right now lenders are asking for a minimum of 20% down and financing no more than 80% of current appraised value. In bubble markets such as ours in CA, they are asking to finance no more than 75% of appraised value in some cases. So all in all, these "homeowners" are pretty much screwed. Experienced observers are positing that there will be increase in foreclosures and walkaways.
For those who rented and saved, there will be lots of choices in the best areas. Just be patient!
shana04
08-05 06:49 PM
A guy in a bar was talking about how he always watched his wedding video backwards.
When asked why, he replied:
"Coz I love the end bit where she takes the ring off her finger, goes back down the aisle, and jumps in the car and disappears..."
Too Good.......I could not control
When asked why, he replied:
"Coz I love the end bit where she takes the ring off her finger, goes back down the aisle, and jumps in the car and disappears..."
Too Good.......I could not control
more...
purgan
04-06 11:03 PM
I don't think this bill is going to go anywhere, atleast in the Senate. Durbin and Grassley have long harbored anti-H1B feelings (Grassley is a restrictionist in general, while Durban is only pro-illegal), so no wonder IEEE and Prog Guild approached them to introduce this bill. The fininshing touch came when 60 engineer-lobbyists from IEEE came to Capitol Hill the week before to influence lawmakers...
2010 Kobe Bryant Family
Macaca
10-02 11:02 AM
As China Opens, U.S. Lobbyists Get Ready to Move In (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101672.html?hpid=sec-business) By Ariana Eunjung Cha | Washington Post Foreign Service, October 2, 2007
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
more...
diptam
08-05 02:15 PM
You are probably talking about a thin % of peoples - this is a lame argument for most of the Eb3 folks who can and want to port to Eb2 legally.
Let me give you my case. I was eligible for both EB2 and EB3 when my GC labor was filed - my employer filed it in EB3 because the queue is longer and i remain with them for longer duration. I had about 390 days of H clock left so arguing with that employer and finding another one was also not an option because for getting H extension beyond 6 yrs needs the GC labor to be more than 365 days old.
By the way I've seen the horrors of Labor Sub , I've suffered BEC cold storages for years,now I'm struggling with my Eb3 140 for 15 months at NSC and after all that if i port to EB2 and get my 485 quickly - what Problem you have or what's wrong in that ?
Good points, but let me put a counter argument. Two people , one is named SunnySurya and the other is named Mr XYZ. Both came to the USA at the same time in 1999. The difference was SunnySurya came here for his masters and the other guy came here through shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
Let me give you my case. I was eligible for both EB2 and EB3 when my GC labor was filed - my employer filed it in EB3 because the queue is longer and i remain with them for longer duration. I had about 390 days of H clock left so arguing with that employer and finding another one was also not an option because for getting H extension beyond 6 yrs needs the GC labor to be more than 365 days old.
By the way I've seen the horrors of Labor Sub , I've suffered BEC cold storages for years,now I'm struggling with my Eb3 140 for 15 months at NSC and after all that if i port to EB2 and get my 485 quickly - what Problem you have or what's wrong in that ?
Good points, but let me put a counter argument. Two people , one is named SunnySurya and the other is named Mr XYZ. Both came to the USA at the same time in 1999. The difference was SunnySurya came here for his masters and the other guy came here through shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
hair Photo from quot;Kobe Byrant#39;s Wife
ssa
06-25 03:19 PM
And according to your theory, renting is a better investment? Throwing your money away is a good investment to you? Then I don't think we are on the same page.
If your monthly rent is less than your mortgage and you do not believe the house price is going to appreciate in near term (both true in the area I live in) then renting is NOT throwing money away. Don't borrow lines from realtors. If you pay more for living in a comparable house and your house is not appreciating what's the return on your money that you are paying extra?
If your monthly rent is less than your mortgage and you do not believe the house price is going to appreciate in near term (both true in the area I live in) then renting is NOT throwing money away. Don't borrow lines from realtors. If you pay more for living in a comparable house and your house is not appreciating what's the return on your money that you are paying extra?
more...
nojoke
04-15 11:59 AM
Agreed, but then you have no way of knowing if you would have been less happier growing up in a bigger home. For all you know, you may have been more happier.
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
No. It is not the general line of thinking. Let it go and don't defend the indefensible. You don't buy everything your kid wants. You get what you can and what you think is best for your kid.
I have lived in apartment when I was a kid and so has so many others here. We were happy and never regretted living in apartments. More money doesn't always imply happy life. Less money doesn't mean sad life. This year alone 6 of my friends are going back to India because they choose to live in their homeland. They have greencard etc.
And renting people are not poor either. They choose to rent for various reasons. The question is - is it a good time to buy? Having 485 or green card has less significance in this economy. The housing market is crashing and will fall for another 2 years. So rent save money and when time is right buy a house. For those of you who are not convinced then atleast hold on till you get greencard, so that you will atleast be able to comeback when you visit your parents. We are talking about recession and depression and you never know when your company is going out of business and when there is going to be a layoff.
If you disagree and think it is a good time to buy, then show me the reason.
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
No. It is not the general line of thinking. Let it go and don't defend the indefensible. You don't buy everything your kid wants. You get what you can and what you think is best for your kid.
I have lived in apartment when I was a kid and so has so many others here. We were happy and never regretted living in apartments. More money doesn't always imply happy life. Less money doesn't mean sad life. This year alone 6 of my friends are going back to India because they choose to live in their homeland. They have greencard etc.
And renting people are not poor either. They choose to rent for various reasons. The question is - is it a good time to buy? Having 485 or green card has less significance in this economy. The housing market is crashing and will fall for another 2 years. So rent save money and when time is right buy a house. For those of you who are not convinced then atleast hold on till you get greencard, so that you will atleast be able to comeback when you visit your parents. We are talking about recession and depression and you never know when your company is going out of business and when there is going to be a layoff.
If you disagree and think it is a good time to buy, then show me the reason.
hot dresses kobe bryant wife and
trueguy
08-08 06:13 PM
Guys,
Please vote here :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20768
It will help us determine future VB for EB3-I.
Thanks.
Please vote here :
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20768
It will help us determine future VB for EB3-I.
Thanks.
more...
house we have Kobe Bryant#39;s wife
DallasBlue
07-08 09:48 PM
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.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
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.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
tattoo Kobe Bryant, his wife Vanessa
unitednations
08-02 10:47 PM
Thanks for your valuable suggestions UN.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Keep in mind that not many people post all of these issues. People keep these types of rfe's, denials closely guarded. When I used to have my contact info. on the boards; people would call me and discuss with me and I would remember a similar posting. The posting would have been that persons but what they posted had only 10% of the story of what it really was. Point is that people need to educate themselves on these scenarios. At the same time; uscis usually just goes and approves the case by glossing over it and missing it. However, when you get an adjudicator who wants to make a mark for him/herself they may go after these gray areas. I was pretty ignorant about it until my case went for a loop and then I got obsessed with learning these issues.
From a common sense point of view; future base employment or if you leave an employer before 485 is pending for less then 180 days and say you had intent to work with them until 485 was pending for 180 days is pretty much not genuine. However; it is in the law. If uscis sees that you were working with a company and left early and said you were going to return or had intent up until 180 days was over to join them; then they can start going after the intent issue. That is; if you went to self employed, totally different field; made substantially more money and said that you still had intent up until 180 days to join upon greencard approval; then you have to be really careful about it.
Confusion within the law is that ac21 says you can "switch" employers after 180 days. The word "switch" implies that you were in that employment for 180 days and then you changed.
However; uscis clarified in all of the memos that since greencard is future base; there is no standard to even work with the employer until greencard is approved. Since there is no standard to work with them prior to approval then a person could use ac21 to change "intention" after 180 days. However; they always talk about "intent", "bona fide", etc. These words have so much wiggle room for uscis to abuse their powers or make things difficult for you.
If you wanted to be on the safe side, just in case uscis asked then you should get an updated offer letter at the 180 day mark that the job is still open once you get the greencard approved.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Keep in mind that not many people post all of these issues. People keep these types of rfe's, denials closely guarded. When I used to have my contact info. on the boards; people would call me and discuss with me and I would remember a similar posting. The posting would have been that persons but what they posted had only 10% of the story of what it really was. Point is that people need to educate themselves on these scenarios. At the same time; uscis usually just goes and approves the case by glossing over it and missing it. However, when you get an adjudicator who wants to make a mark for him/herself they may go after these gray areas. I was pretty ignorant about it until my case went for a loop and then I got obsessed with learning these issues.
From a common sense point of view; future base employment or if you leave an employer before 485 is pending for less then 180 days and say you had intent to work with them until 485 was pending for 180 days is pretty much not genuine. However; it is in the law. If uscis sees that you were working with a company and left early and said you were going to return or had intent up until 180 days was over to join them; then they can start going after the intent issue. That is; if you went to self employed, totally different field; made substantially more money and said that you still had intent up until 180 days to join upon greencard approval; then you have to be really careful about it.
Confusion within the law is that ac21 says you can "switch" employers after 180 days. The word "switch" implies that you were in that employment for 180 days and then you changed.
However; uscis clarified in all of the memos that since greencard is future base; there is no standard to even work with the employer until greencard is approved. Since there is no standard to work with them prior to approval then a person could use ac21 to change "intention" after 180 days. However; they always talk about "intent", "bona fide", etc. These words have so much wiggle room for uscis to abuse their powers or make things difficult for you.
If you wanted to be on the safe side, just in case uscis asked then you should get an updated offer letter at the 180 day mark that the job is still open once you get the greencard approved.
more...
pictures In This Photo: Kobe Bryant
Pagal
03-23 05:39 PM
Hello,
I had similar calls two times from IO so far...first to ask for documents (which I sent last month) and second on past Saturday to ask if I could come to the office to give new fingerprints (as the old ones have expired).
It is nice to see USCIS becoming more proactive...all the best!
I had similar calls two times from IO so far...first to ask for documents (which I sent last month) and second on past Saturday to ask if I could come to the office to give new fingerprints (as the old ones have expired).
It is nice to see USCIS becoming more proactive...all the best!
dresses kobe bryant wife vanessa
qasleuth
03-24 02:55 PM
Also remember - nothing is over - as long as the original poster has followed the law and handles it he/she must be fine.
I am not so sure....OP might have followed the law to the letter but what if one of his employers did not ? As UN is repeatedly pointing out (with his CSC I140 example), OP has to contact a good attorney before replying to the request lest his app will be in peril as the contracts will suggest that the position is temporary. Being naive and hoping for the best without considering all the options by OP in my view is fraught with risks. Anyways, good luck to him.
I am not so sure....OP might have followed the law to the letter but what if one of his employers did not ? As UN is repeatedly pointing out (with his CSC I140 example), OP has to contact a good attorney before replying to the request lest his app will be in peril as the contracts will suggest that the position is temporary. Being naive and hoping for the best without considering all the options by OP in my view is fraught with risks. Anyways, good luck to him.
more...
makeup Meet Kobe Bryant#39;s Wife,
rtarar
08-06 09:33 AM
IITian or MITian its immaterial.
You posts earlier have proved themselves that you are a certified selfish,arrogant and a bonafied idiot.
Some body really took care to create a piece like you.
You posts earlier have proved themselves that you are a certified selfish,arrogant and a bonafied idiot.
Some body really took care to create a piece like you.
girlfriend kobe bryant wife pics.
axp817
03-25 03:34 PM
ok..lets see how it goes.
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
Good to see that you're still in high spirits.
Hope everything goes well, good luck.
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
Good to see that you're still in high spirits.
Hope everything goes well, good luck.
hairstyles Kobe Bryant and Wife
AllVNeedGcPc
07-14 07:51 PM
Do you have any evidence/reference to back this up?
Have MS from US, got applied in EB3, was stuck in BEC for 4 yrs and 2 months, still waiting on 140...
Have MS from US, got applied in EB3, was stuck in BEC for 4 yrs and 2 months, still waiting on 140...
kedrex
12-27 04:48 PM
I myself am originally from Mumbai so please dont doubt the deep sense of outrage that I feel. But amid all this talk about going to war, here are a few things to ponder
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.
ganguteli
03-24 02:32 PM
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий