ss_col
07-06 11:17 AM
Just a thought that there are other anti immigrant groups also visiting our website. We are frustrated and angry but all these comments that we are writing are also read by other people and will be used against us to make things harder. Also the general feeling is that American people dont really care or want to understand about GC. For them especially groups like NumberUSA etc want us out. So please stop feeding ideas into people's head without knowing facts. Assumptions are not facts.
wallpaper 2010 Dragon Tattoos asian
DDLMODES
07-06 08:48 AM
there was a serious security lapse in issuing green cards, FBI Security check was bypassed, the USCIS might have given the visa to even terrorists.
Guys, don't put this spin on the story. Until proven otherwise YOU ARE one of those potential people that can be considered a threat.
Besides, we have no ideea if the security checks were bypassed.
Guys, don't put this spin on the story. Until proven otherwise YOU ARE one of those potential people that can be considered a threat.
Besides, we have no ideea if the security checks were bypassed.
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
2011 tribal-dragon-tattoos.html
amsgc
06-24 07:44 PM
I agree with those who say that giving green cards to the three hundred thousand wannabe immigrants will not turn the economy around tomorrow, and perhaps in the short period there doesn't seem to be an apparant advantage. After all, these are the cash cows that are milked everyday by way of taxes and the ever increasing USCIS fees.
However, it is important to consider the larger picture with a view on the next few years. Even if a few thousand people go and buy a house, it will make a difference to the local community, however small it may be. If a few thousand people are able to start their own business, it will lead to the creation of a few more thousand jobs, which is still better than the current number - zero. Even if a few thousand decide to get a higher education, or get promoted, America will be richer in the quality of its people by those many, however small that number may be. And I bet thousands of those high skilled immigrants will demand a higher salary which which will not only level the playing field, but also result in higher pay. And need I mention the effect of higher salaries on the propensity to consume?
I haven't even gotten into the social advantages of having a home where both parents are able to think and work freely, and the effect that has on the upbringing of their children (more than likely US citizens).
Now, what does it really cost the US govt./America to give out the green card? As far as the issue of social security is concerned, these wannabes will be eligible anyway after 10 years, whether they have a green card or not. The USCIS fees for renewal is a about a $1000 per year, which pales in comparison to the the new car that I will buy :) What else, lawyer fees? People are worried about lawyers being displaced! You got to be kidding - immigration law is not the only kind of law practiced in this part of the world. I would be worried more for them if Americans decided not to get divorced.
So, my question is:
Do the costs of giving out green cards to high skilled professionals really outweigh some the benefits mentioned above?
I don't see any good arguments for not giving out a green card sooner than later. And if there aren't any tangible benefits in keeping three hundred thousand people in limbo, then America is losing out on the advantages it will have by making them permanent residents.
However, it is important to consider the larger picture with a view on the next few years. Even if a few thousand people go and buy a house, it will make a difference to the local community, however small it may be. If a few thousand people are able to start their own business, it will lead to the creation of a few more thousand jobs, which is still better than the current number - zero. Even if a few thousand decide to get a higher education, or get promoted, America will be richer in the quality of its people by those many, however small that number may be. And I bet thousands of those high skilled immigrants will demand a higher salary which which will not only level the playing field, but also result in higher pay. And need I mention the effect of higher salaries on the propensity to consume?
I haven't even gotten into the social advantages of having a home where both parents are able to think and work freely, and the effect that has on the upbringing of their children (more than likely US citizens).
Now, what does it really cost the US govt./America to give out the green card? As far as the issue of social security is concerned, these wannabes will be eligible anyway after 10 years, whether they have a green card or not. The USCIS fees for renewal is a about a $1000 per year, which pales in comparison to the the new car that I will buy :) What else, lawyer fees? People are worried about lawyers being displaced! You got to be kidding - immigration law is not the only kind of law practiced in this part of the world. I would be worried more for them if Americans decided not to get divorced.
So, my question is:
Do the costs of giving out green cards to high skilled professionals really outweigh some the benefits mentioned above?
I don't see any good arguments for not giving out a green card sooner than later. And if there aren't any tangible benefits in keeping three hundred thousand people in limbo, then America is losing out on the advantages it will have by making them permanent residents.
more...
reddy77
08-18 08:07 AM
Lacris, I went to SSA office to get SSN rejection letter for my wife as she is on h4 (DMV needs rejection letter to renew the license) and SSA Agent checked the passport of my wife for the expiry date, May be they are checking the expiry date now a days, I think you need to renew the passport and go to SSA office for SSN, But I may be wrong
Hi, ,
Did anyone get a SSN with their passport expired?
My passport expired in April and the Romanian embassy doesn't renew passports for people who are not US permanent residents or citizens. What I could do was to make a letter of representation for someone in my country, get it certified at one of the Romanian consulates and send all the ORIGINAL documents thru mail in Romania. Since I'm a full time graduate student, even finding time to go to the nearest consulate was almost impossible. I was also worried that we might be asked to show up for an interview and would not have documents like passport or marriage certificate in hand. I talked to the lawyer and she said that if I don't plan to travel abroad, not having a valid passport is ok.
Yesterday I got the plastic card and today I went to apply for a SSN. The lady I talked to refused to take my application, saying that my Romanian passport is considered an "immigration document" and until I have an unexpired one, I should not try to get a SSN. Call me crazy, but since I am a permanent resident doesn't it mean I don't have to leave USA unless I want to???? And even more, how can a document issued by a foreign country be an immigration document, since I'm not applying for SSN based on a visa stamped in that passport.
If anyone went thru the same situation or has some advice for me, please answer.
Thank you
Hi, ,
Did anyone get a SSN with their passport expired?
My passport expired in April and the Romanian embassy doesn't renew passports for people who are not US permanent residents or citizens. What I could do was to make a letter of representation for someone in my country, get it certified at one of the Romanian consulates and send all the ORIGINAL documents thru mail in Romania. Since I'm a full time graduate student, even finding time to go to the nearest consulate was almost impossible. I was also worried that we might be asked to show up for an interview and would not have documents like passport or marriage certificate in hand. I talked to the lawyer and she said that if I don't plan to travel abroad, not having a valid passport is ok.
Yesterday I got the plastic card and today I went to apply for a SSN. The lady I talked to refused to take my application, saying that my Romanian passport is considered an "immigration document" and until I have an unexpired one, I should not try to get a SSN. Call me crazy, but since I am a permanent resident doesn't it mean I don't have to leave USA unless I want to???? And even more, how can a document issued by a foreign country be an immigration document, since I'm not applying for SSN based on a visa stamped in that passport.
If anyone went thru the same situation or has some advice for me, please answer.
Thank you
r_mistry
12-27 01:05 PM
I applied I-485/EAD/AP on July 24th at Nebraska. Have received EAD and FP done but AP is still pending.
I noticed couple of soft LUDS on my I-140 (which was approved in Dec, 2006) and I-485 in last few days but nothing on AP. My PD is Oct, 2005 ROW.
Still waiting.......
I noticed couple of soft LUDS on my I-140 (which was approved in Dec, 2006) and I-485 in last few days but nothing on AP. My PD is Oct, 2005 ROW.
Still waiting.......
more...
sonyyy
06-25 10:40 AM
I agree.
Uncertainty hurts but eventually, almost everybody will get what they want in this case.
Plus, think about it this way, without this current, you won't be able to file your 485 anyway till next year.
Relax Buddy , now that the bus has come they will keep coming .Most of the people will go in this bus. The dates will retrogress for some time and will be current maybe next year . If not this bus then the next bus . No use raising your blood pressure for this . Attorneys and the media have a habit of scaring people unnecessarily . This Current date is not the end of the world , so take a chill pill ..
Uncertainty hurts but eventually, almost everybody will get what they want in this case.
Plus, think about it this way, without this current, you won't be able to file your 485 anyway till next year.
Relax Buddy , now that the bus has come they will keep coming .Most of the people will go in this bus. The dates will retrogress for some time and will be current maybe next year . If not this bus then the next bus . No use raising your blood pressure for this . Attorneys and the media have a habit of scaring people unnecessarily . This Current date is not the end of the world , so take a chill pill ..
2010 japanese dragons tattoos.
sunny1000
04-30 04:54 PM
This is the style of the officer of USCIS of America!
Some idiot gave me a red for asking for this translation...Whoever that is, please note that not all speak Hindi and I wanted to know what the poster was saying. So, go screw yourself if you don't like it.:mad::mad:
Some idiot gave me a red for asking for this translation...Whoever that is, please note that not all speak Hindi and I wanted to know what the poster was saying. So, go screw yourself if you don't like it.:mad::mad:
more...
chanduv23
11-24 05:27 PM
I left my GC sponser employer 3 months ago and joined new employer on EAD. I spoke to the new company's attorney to file H1B after 2 months of joining. She said that since I have completed 6 years of my H1B so it does not matter if I am on H1B or on EAD as none of them will provide safety net if something goes wrong on 485. Suddenly, after 15 days, I got an email from my Lawyers's office saying that my new company has given permission to them to apply a H1B extn for me and asked me to send the required docs. I am not sure what prompted them to apply my H1B as I had already given up H1B thing and was happy with EAD. I dont know, it might be something to do with charging fee from my new employer or something. Bottomline is no one knows about it and may be even USCIS might not have this scenario in their rule book.
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
Maybe we should get it from the horse's mouth and I am sure it is not easy because USCIS will not admit that 485s get denied when invoking AC21
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
Maybe we should get it from the horse's mouth and I am sure it is not easy because USCIS will not admit that 485s get denied when invoking AC21
hair Celtic Dragon Tattoos
vin13
02-19 11:55 AM
I don't understand why EB3-I is a lost cause. Isn't the percentage distribution for the various categories taken into account? I don;t think I understand how the percentage distrubution works probably. Can anyone please explain?
India and China get most of their share through not only the allocated %age but also through the spillover from ROW. Since there is less spillover from ROW for EB-3, the amount of visa for EB-3I is less.
India and China get most of their share through not only the allocated %age but also through the spillover from ROW. Since there is less spillover from ROW for EB-3, the amount of visa for EB-3I is less.
more...
conundrum
09-10 11:48 AM
Same here - Masters from US, with PD 2006....Stilllllllllllllllll waiting!!!!!
I was reading an article handed over by my Lawyer sometime back - the whole GC process was designed to be completed in 6 mos. end-to-end.
This goes to show how outdated the process is, plus the resource crunch they may be facing at USCIS.
All in all - it's a black hole...only your 'karma' can get you out of it:)
Check my signature! I have a MS and PhD from here... be thankfully you are so far ahead with your processing!
I can understand your frustration, but try to empathize with guys who have PD before you and are stuck in this lousy system.
I was reading an article handed over by my Lawyer sometime back - the whole GC process was designed to be completed in 6 mos. end-to-end.
This goes to show how outdated the process is, plus the resource crunch they may be facing at USCIS.
All in all - it's a black hole...only your 'karma' can get you out of it:)
Check my signature! I have a MS and PhD from here... be thankfully you are so far ahead with your processing!
I can understand your frustration, but try to empathize with guys who have PD before you and are stuck in this lousy system.
hot chinese dragon tattoos.
unseenguy
02-09 05:01 PM
To summarize the root causes now that we discussed:
1. Parental interference to control their own child even after marriage. This is cause no 1 of this kind of tensions.
2. Immaturity on the part of children, to let their parents control their feelings. (This is partly due to in arranged marriages, children are closer to parents than the spouse in initial years). This is no 2 issue. Children simply fail to understand they are no more part of their parents family. I honestly feel these people are not really ready for marriage or understand what marriage is.
3. Money transactions. One side expecting money from other side which is not really acceptable. I will elaborate this point a bit more.
4. In cases of couples settled in US/UK, parents know that couples are making a LOT more than by Indian standards. Hence to secure their own old age comfort, everyone tries to exert influence.
On no 3, let us separate our "legal" obligations from "moral".
Morally it is right to send money to parents, but legally it is not. As you can strive but, you wont be fair to either set of parents. Hence I believe "money" should not be sent to parents. Your parents should have planned their own future, including humanitarian needs. Only if your other half agrees, then only you should send money. Otherwise, it is your and your spouse's money.
If your parents needed monetary support then that they should have made clear to other parents at the time of marriage. Not after marriage. If its a love marriage, then the boy/girl should have clearly told this requirement to the other half.
1. Parental interference to control their own child even after marriage. This is cause no 1 of this kind of tensions.
2. Immaturity on the part of children, to let their parents control their feelings. (This is partly due to in arranged marriages, children are closer to parents than the spouse in initial years). This is no 2 issue. Children simply fail to understand they are no more part of their parents family. I honestly feel these people are not really ready for marriage or understand what marriage is.
3. Money transactions. One side expecting money from other side which is not really acceptable. I will elaborate this point a bit more.
4. In cases of couples settled in US/UK, parents know that couples are making a LOT more than by Indian standards. Hence to secure their own old age comfort, everyone tries to exert influence.
On no 3, let us separate our "legal" obligations from "moral".
Morally it is right to send money to parents, but legally it is not. As you can strive but, you wont be fair to either set of parents. Hence I believe "money" should not be sent to parents. Your parents should have planned their own future, including humanitarian needs. Only if your other half agrees, then only you should send money. Otherwise, it is your and your spouse's money.
If your parents needed monetary support then that they should have made clear to other parents at the time of marriage. Not after marriage. If its a love marriage, then the boy/girl should have clearly told this requirement to the other half.
more...
house red dragon tattoo. of Asian
p_kumar
09-30 04:19 PM
My EB3 PD is Oct 2003. I-140 approved and I-485 ND is July24th.when can i expect to get the green card?. thanks in advance.
tattoo Koi Tattoo (Group) dragon
Jaime
09-12 05:27 PM
Bump
more...
pictures Dragon Tattoos 3 The Best
needhelp!
09-12 12:09 PM
I had started with the online press release sites, which one should be higher priority?
dresses 3D Dragon Tattoo Pictures
Milind123
09-14 01:12 PM
Great job Milind!
Keep it up! You should be our "guest of honor" at the rally!
How about we build a "wooden" chair and carry you around at the rally? Not to mention lots of flower garlands! :)
What do you say folks?
Thanks dtekkedil. Now you are stopping me from coming to the rally. There are other people who deserve this honor more.
Keep it up! You should be our "guest of honor" at the rally!
How about we build a "wooden" chair and carry you around at the rally? Not to mention lots of flower garlands! :)
What do you say folks?
Thanks dtekkedil. Now you are stopping me from coming to the rally. There are other people who deserve this honor more.
more...
makeup (Small Tribal Dragon tattoo
caliguy
09-09 03:05 AM
Good luck guys! Thanks for all the hard work each of you are putting in.
Transaction ID: 8NY02905F8401260H
Contributions so far: $440
Transaction ID: 8NY02905F8401260H
Contributions so far: $440
girlfriend Koi dragon tattoo designs 11
hazishak
07-19 01:33 PM
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June,2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Since both A and B were current at the time of AOS approval. Person with earlier RD will take precedence. however if the cut off date were April 2003, person B will get the visa.
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June,2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Since both A and B were current at the time of AOS approval. Person with earlier RD will take precedence. however if the cut off date were April 2003, person B will get the visa.
hairstyles Tribal Dragon tattoos
JunRN
09-29 01:40 AM
Hahaha! It sounds that you're really mad though! I am optimistic that I'll get my GC next year! No need to wait for 2009!
bombaysardar
07-28 10:30 PM
^
AK_GC
03-04 01:51 PM
I got a RFE for I-693 (Medical Exam) on Jan 27 and we responded in Feb. Our case is being processed in NSC. My husband is the primary applicant. It does seem like something is cooking there...
No comments:
Post a Comment