qasleuth
03-31 09:58 PM
I was quoting you to make a point, did not mean to put words in your mouth. Apologies.
I totally agree about the transperancy part and the affect measuring people has on productivity. My receipt date is 07/30/07 and notice date is 09/06/2007, there were cases filed after mine on which RFEs were issued. Does it mean they have preadjudicated/looked at my case ? I can only wish as it is pretty hard to believe that it was looked at.
Didn't say anything about "systematic" at all - I think we all know better than to use "systematic" and "USCIS" in the same sentence!:D However, they definitely seem to be making some progress on adjudications even if none the country caps limit green cards issual. Aamazing how you can change behaviour when you set a goal and start to measure people on it - looking at the bits and pieces of info being released by USCIS, you can see something is changing and I would suspect a lot has to do with the new leadership in government, that has a mandate for greater transparency (unlike their predecessors). Given the lack of visibility to Case Officers of cases with old PD's (they track by RDs and not PDs), I cannot but believe this will be good for getting some structure into the system.
I totally agree about the transperancy part and the affect measuring people has on productivity. My receipt date is 07/30/07 and notice date is 09/06/2007, there were cases filed after mine on which RFEs were issued. Does it mean they have preadjudicated/looked at my case ? I can only wish as it is pretty hard to believe that it was looked at.
Didn't say anything about "systematic" at all - I think we all know better than to use "systematic" and "USCIS" in the same sentence!:D However, they definitely seem to be making some progress on adjudications even if none the country caps limit green cards issual. Aamazing how you can change behaviour when you set a goal and start to measure people on it - looking at the bits and pieces of info being released by USCIS, you can see something is changing and I would suspect a lot has to do with the new leadership in government, that has a mandate for greater transparency (unlike their predecessors). Given the lack of visibility to Case Officers of cases with old PD's (they track by RDs and not PDs), I cannot but believe this will be good for getting some structure into the system.
wallpaper diagram Thethe human heart
Refugee_New
01-06 04:54 PM
i am sorry that israel has been a little callous about collateral damage...not cool!
i have seen most of the opinions favouring israel so i need not speak out here. but these are my feelings and i don't care how many red dots i get:
a. hamas does not believe in coexistence with israel but wants its destruction. and belongs to the powerful syria-iran-hezbollah axis. not cool!
event Egypt and Saudi Arabia regard Hamas with skepticism.
b. they teach kids that killing jews is the right thing. and btw for that matter US DoS had protested revised 4th grade Saudi text that teaches all non-believers should be killed. teaching hatred to kids is not cool!
c. hamas was using mosques and schools as cover. hiding amongst civilian population, using women and children as suicide bombers and then making an outcry...not cool!
d. hamas was the first to break the truce and had been secretly preparing via tunnels etc throughout the period of calm. not cool!
e. in UK sometime back i remember a church had been converted to a mosque with the blessings of the locals. so cool!
tibetians have been killed and driven out of their land for example...but you dont see the Dalai Lama summoning Tibetians for killing of chinese soldiers stationed in Tibet. so cool!
...not sure it would be possible in an islamic country. why is it that if it is "terrorism", it usually means islamic terrorism?
moderates like you need to spread the message of negotiation and distance themselves from any act of violence and such teachings.
You are educated by CNN and Fox. Go see what others are saying. Don't just be one sided.
Yes, when you kill Muslims its collateral damage. Killing school kids and bombing schools and hospital is collateral damage. If we have this mentality, yes we would see peace and harmony in this world.
i have seen most of the opinions favouring israel so i need not speak out here. but these are my feelings and i don't care how many red dots i get:
a. hamas does not believe in coexistence with israel but wants its destruction. and belongs to the powerful syria-iran-hezbollah axis. not cool!
event Egypt and Saudi Arabia regard Hamas with skepticism.
b. they teach kids that killing jews is the right thing. and btw for that matter US DoS had protested revised 4th grade Saudi text that teaches all non-believers should be killed. teaching hatred to kids is not cool!
c. hamas was using mosques and schools as cover. hiding amongst civilian population, using women and children as suicide bombers and then making an outcry...not cool!
d. hamas was the first to break the truce and had been secretly preparing via tunnels etc throughout the period of calm. not cool!
e. in UK sometime back i remember a church had been converted to a mosque with the blessings of the locals. so cool!
tibetians have been killed and driven out of their land for example...but you dont see the Dalai Lama summoning Tibetians for killing of chinese soldiers stationed in Tibet. so cool!
...not sure it would be possible in an islamic country. why is it that if it is "terrorism", it usually means islamic terrorism?
moderates like you need to spread the message of negotiation and distance themselves from any act of violence and such teachings.
You are educated by CNN and Fox. Go see what others are saying. Don't just be one sided.
Yes, when you kill Muslims its collateral damage. Killing school kids and bombing schools and hospital is collateral damage. If we have this mentality, yes we would see peace and harmony in this world.
Macaca
07-08 09:04 AM
I have a .pdf file as to how the 485 files are processed right from the time we mail the packets until they r adjucticated..it is from ilw.com.
Please post URL of this file. Thanks!
Please post URL of this file. Thanks!
2011 joints or heart valves,
willIgetGC
08-12 07:51 PM
We will get GC if they Outsource these jobs to India and China, any ways these people are not working zimbly telling name checker, they dont want to yearn meney.
more...
logiclife
06-01 01:19 PM
Its also MSNBC. Just look at Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.
If you hear Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, he sounds like the protege of Jeff Sessions.
However, one difference between Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs. Tucker supports(or atleast pretends to support) the legal variety.
Lou Dobbs openly opposes all immigration.
If you hear Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, he sounds like the protege of Jeff Sessions.
However, one difference between Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs. Tucker supports(or atleast pretends to support) the legal variety.
Lou Dobbs openly opposes all immigration.
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
more...
Macaca
12-29 07:52 PM
Foreign dignitaries chafe at TSA policies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205461.html) By Colum Lynch | Washington Post
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's ambassador to the United Nations, last month ran headfirst into a controversial new Transportation Security Administration inspection policy for many foreign travelers.
At the airport in Austin, TSA agents demanded to inspect his turban. Puri is a Sikh, whose religion requires that the turban, or dastar, be worn in public to cover uncut hair. Puri refused the TSA order, citing an agency exception that allows Sikhs to pat down their own turbans to avoid intrusive searches and then have their hands tested for possible explosives.
The situation escalated when TSA agents initially ignored Puri's protestations and said they would decide what the rules are, according to an official traveling with the ambassador.
Puri told an Indian newspaper that the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes after he asked a supervisor to intervene.
The incident underscores the sometimes bumpy relationship between the TSA and foreign delegations traveling to the United States in an era of heightened security.
Diplomats are required to submit to searches, which intensified for many foreign travelers to the United States in January. The TSA put in place special procedures for greater scrutiny of individuals from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, prompting complaints from Muslim governments. (India was not on the list.)
In April, "enhanced random security measures" for all passengers were put into effect - including pat-downs, sniffing dogs and more rigorous explosives testing. And last month, the TSA approved even more invasive body searches, which posed particularly sensitive issues for passengers with certain religious beliefs and medical issues.
For globe-trotting diplomats, the U.S. government has offered since 2007 a list of "tips" to help them get through "the screening process easily and efficiently." It advises foreign dignitaries to carry two sets of credentials and warns that "screening may include a hand-wanding procedure and pat-down inspection." Searches, the memo says, will be conducted out of public view.
The episode involving Puri has roiled sensibilities in India, where Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna complained this month about the TSA's pat-downs of Meera Shankar, the country's ambassador to the United States. Krishna said Shankar was frisked twice in three months, most recently when she was pulled aside at the Jackson, Miss., airport and subjected to a body search by a female TSA agent.
"Let me be very frank that this is unacceptable," Krishna said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the State Department would look into the matter and try to take steps to avoid such international incidents.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement: "The threat to aviation is a global challenge and every airport in the world is wrestling with how to best protect the flying public with as little friction as possible. We are all in this together. Our citizens are affected and those of other countries. Our diplomats are impacted, so are the diplomats of other countries. These situations in this country are certainly not unique."
A TSA spokesman defended the treatment of Puri and Shankar. The overwhelming majority of 2 million U.S. air travelers, the official said, have had a positive experience using the nation's airports.
Puri "was not required to remove his turban, and our officers worked with him to complete screening according to established procedures," said spokesman Nicholas Kimball. "We will continue working with our officers to reinforce all established policies, including those pertaining to the respectful screening of religious headwear and clothing."
Kimball also said that a review of Shankar's pat-down in Jackson demonstrated that the TSA agents "followed proper procedure."
"United States airport security policies accommodate those individuals with religious, medical or other reasons for which the passenger cannot or wishes not to remove a certain item of clothing," Kimball added. "For religious headwear, a passenger can pat the item down themselves and then have their hand tested for traces of explosive residue."
In March, a State Department goodwill tour of the United States for a delegation of Pakistani lawmakers backfired after the group was asked to submit to additional screening on a flight from Washington to New Orleans. The lawmakers refused to board. The Pakistani army recalled a military delegation from Washington after the officers were subjected to what it called "unwarranted" searches.
Many of the incidents involve domestic flights at airports where TSA agents may have less exposure to foreign fliers than those at major international airports. One U.N. official, an American citizen of South Asian extraction, traveling with his American wife and children, said he often gets pulled aside for pat-downs and "random searches."
He said his youngest daughter recently recalled her memories of a flight: "I remember, we go on the airplane, and I take my shoes off, and you take your shoes off, and the men take Papa away and touch him everywhere," the girl told her mother.
But other diplomats from South Asia say they have had no trouble with the TSA.
Anwarul Chowdhury, a former Bangladeshi ambassador to the United Nations, said he has traveled without problems for more than a decade as a foreign and U.N. official. He recently returned from a trip to Spain without incident. "We had smooth sailing," he said. "My wife also wears a sari all the time. I don't wear a turban, but I think they were extremely courteous, very nice."
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's ambassador to the United Nations, last month ran headfirst into a controversial new Transportation Security Administration inspection policy for many foreign travelers.
At the airport in Austin, TSA agents demanded to inspect his turban. Puri is a Sikh, whose religion requires that the turban, or dastar, be worn in public to cover uncut hair. Puri refused the TSA order, citing an agency exception that allows Sikhs to pat down their own turbans to avoid intrusive searches and then have their hands tested for possible explosives.
The situation escalated when TSA agents initially ignored Puri's protestations and said they would decide what the rules are, according to an official traveling with the ambassador.
Puri told an Indian newspaper that the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes after he asked a supervisor to intervene.
The incident underscores the sometimes bumpy relationship between the TSA and foreign delegations traveling to the United States in an era of heightened security.
Diplomats are required to submit to searches, which intensified for many foreign travelers to the United States in January. The TSA put in place special procedures for greater scrutiny of individuals from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, prompting complaints from Muslim governments. (India was not on the list.)
In April, "enhanced random security measures" for all passengers were put into effect - including pat-downs, sniffing dogs and more rigorous explosives testing. And last month, the TSA approved even more invasive body searches, which posed particularly sensitive issues for passengers with certain religious beliefs and medical issues.
For globe-trotting diplomats, the U.S. government has offered since 2007 a list of "tips" to help them get through "the screening process easily and efficiently." It advises foreign dignitaries to carry two sets of credentials and warns that "screening may include a hand-wanding procedure and pat-down inspection." Searches, the memo says, will be conducted out of public view.
The episode involving Puri has roiled sensibilities in India, where Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna complained this month about the TSA's pat-downs of Meera Shankar, the country's ambassador to the United States. Krishna said Shankar was frisked twice in three months, most recently when she was pulled aside at the Jackson, Miss., airport and subjected to a body search by a female TSA agent.
"Let me be very frank that this is unacceptable," Krishna said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the State Department would look into the matter and try to take steps to avoid such international incidents.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement: "The threat to aviation is a global challenge and every airport in the world is wrestling with how to best protect the flying public with as little friction as possible. We are all in this together. Our citizens are affected and those of other countries. Our diplomats are impacted, so are the diplomats of other countries. These situations in this country are certainly not unique."
A TSA spokesman defended the treatment of Puri and Shankar. The overwhelming majority of 2 million U.S. air travelers, the official said, have had a positive experience using the nation's airports.
Puri "was not required to remove his turban, and our officers worked with him to complete screening according to established procedures," said spokesman Nicholas Kimball. "We will continue working with our officers to reinforce all established policies, including those pertaining to the respectful screening of religious headwear and clothing."
Kimball also said that a review of Shankar's pat-down in Jackson demonstrated that the TSA agents "followed proper procedure."
"United States airport security policies accommodate those individuals with religious, medical or other reasons for which the passenger cannot or wishes not to remove a certain item of clothing," Kimball added. "For religious headwear, a passenger can pat the item down themselves and then have their hand tested for traces of explosive residue."
In March, a State Department goodwill tour of the United States for a delegation of Pakistani lawmakers backfired after the group was asked to submit to additional screening on a flight from Washington to New Orleans. The lawmakers refused to board. The Pakistani army recalled a military delegation from Washington after the officers were subjected to what it called "unwarranted" searches.
Many of the incidents involve domestic flights at airports where TSA agents may have less exposure to foreign fliers than those at major international airports. One U.N. official, an American citizen of South Asian extraction, traveling with his American wife and children, said he often gets pulled aside for pat-downs and "random searches."
He said his youngest daughter recently recalled her memories of a flight: "I remember, we go on the airplane, and I take my shoes off, and you take your shoes off, and the men take Papa away and touch him everywhere," the girl told her mother.
But other diplomats from South Asia say they have had no trouble with the TSA.
Anwarul Chowdhury, a former Bangladeshi ambassador to the United Nations, said he has traveled without problems for more than a decade as a foreign and U.N. official. He recently returned from a trip to Spain without incident. "We had smooth sailing," he said. "My wife also wears a sari all the time. I don't wear a turban, but I think they were extremely courteous, very nice."
2010 illustration human heart,
posmd
07-08 04:56 PM
Nice to hear you are still in the background UN.
more...
panky72
08-20 06:55 PM
An old man lived alone in Minnesota. He wanted to spade his potato garden, but it was very hard work. His only son, who would have helped him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and mentioned his situation:
Dear Son,
" I am feeling pretty bad because it looks like I won't be able to plant my potato garden this year. I hate to miss doing the garden, because your mother always loved planting time. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. If you were here, all my troubles would be over. I know you would dig the plot for me, if you weren't in prison
............. ......... .......Love, Dad "
Shortly, the old man received this telegram : "For Heaven's sake, Dad, don't dig up the garden!! That's where I buried the GUNS!!"
At 4 a.m. the next morning, a dozen FBI agents and local police officers showed up and dug up the entire garden without finding any guns.
Confused, the old man wrote another note to his son telling him what happened, and asked him what to do.
His son's reply was: "Go ahead and plant your potatoes, Dad......... ...... It's the best I could do for you from here."
Moral:
NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN THE WORLD, IF YOU HAVE DECIDED TO DO
SOMETHING DEEP FROM YOUR HEART, YOU CAN DO IT. IT IS THE THOUGHT THAT MATTERS NOT WHERE YOU ARE OR WHERE THE PERSON IS.
Dear Son,
" I am feeling pretty bad because it looks like I won't be able to plant my potato garden this year. I hate to miss doing the garden, because your mother always loved planting time. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. If you were here, all my troubles would be over. I know you would dig the plot for me, if you weren't in prison
............. ......... .......Love, Dad "
Shortly, the old man received this telegram : "For Heaven's sake, Dad, don't dig up the garden!! That's where I buried the GUNS!!"
At 4 a.m. the next morning, a dozen FBI agents and local police officers showed up and dug up the entire garden without finding any guns.
Confused, the old man wrote another note to his son telling him what happened, and asked him what to do.
His son's reply was: "Go ahead and plant your potatoes, Dad......... ...... It's the best I could do for you from here."
Moral:
NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN THE WORLD, IF YOU HAVE DECIDED TO DO
SOMETHING DEEP FROM YOUR HEART, YOU CAN DO IT. IT IS THE THOUGHT THAT MATTERS NOT WHERE YOU ARE OR WHERE THE PERSON IS.
hair heart valves and skin for
CreatedToday
01-09 01:34 PM
The discussion tuned nasty! Admin got involved.
why are you digging it up?
Its good we talk healthy now!
why are you digging it up?
Its good we talk healthy now!
more...
gcisadawg
12-22 06:23 PM
So tomorrow if I loose a job and kill someone considering responsible for it is justifiable? Where is the gray area?
Dude, if you havent heard about it, it is already happening.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/15/a-sad-day-in-silicon-valley/
One the serious note, you didn't get the crux of my post. Read my previous reply to another poster.
Dude, if you havent heard about it, it is already happening.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/15/a-sad-day-in-silicon-valley/
One the serious note, you didn't get the crux of my post. Read my previous reply to another poster.
hot human aortic heart valve
mrajatish
07-08 07:22 PM
There are a lot of protections in immigration law for us beneficiaries.
When we quote laws; we generally are looking for specific items that may benefit us.
However; uscis uses or misuses other parts of immigration law to override these friendly type aspects.
Every piece of paper a person signs and sends to uscis is done under "penalty of perjury". Even though there is protection such as 245k; uscis can use the "perjury" and document fraud to override all of these friendly type policies. If they think a person is dirty or trying to get away with something then they will dig even harder until they find something. I remember as an auditor; a company wanted to fire their CFO but couldn't find a performance reason. Easiest way was to go to the persons expense report because everyone fudges it and this is essentially how he got fired. USCIS knows that if they dig hard into someones file they will find something.
Many people don't really understand the investigative powers uscis has or the extent they will go through. if person fakes paystubs to do an h-1b transfer; well uscis issues rfe's asking for a listing of all h-1b employees and payments made to each employee for last two years. I have seen them inter-relate this information for people who have faked these types of things.
Recently; I saw uscis california service center request state unemployment compensation reports for all employees for wages paid for the last two years. the service center actually picked four people who were paid substantially less and pulled their h-1b files and pointed this out in their denial that they coudn't trust the companies assertions on the LCA and they had to deny the petition for the current beneficiary.
All these talks of lawsuits, etc; will just make them dig in their heels more and find more things and make it more and more difficult.
Frankly, this is very very scary - I do not know what to say here. As per law, USCIS should only worry about what happenned after the last lawful admission into United States. But they can find any number of small faults in a application - after all, the application is so comprehensive that it is biased towards making small mistakes. This may not be true for people who get GC within the first 2-3 years in US but for others, they have a long enough history in US such that they will be pre-disposed to making errors.
It is best to be up front about a situation if one gets an RFE - even if one has violated certain laws, it is better to admit that and convince the officer about the circumstances leading to such violation.
My earnest prayers with you - please find a good lawyer to represent your case.
When we quote laws; we generally are looking for specific items that may benefit us.
However; uscis uses or misuses other parts of immigration law to override these friendly type aspects.
Every piece of paper a person signs and sends to uscis is done under "penalty of perjury". Even though there is protection such as 245k; uscis can use the "perjury" and document fraud to override all of these friendly type policies. If they think a person is dirty or trying to get away with something then they will dig even harder until they find something. I remember as an auditor; a company wanted to fire their CFO but couldn't find a performance reason. Easiest way was to go to the persons expense report because everyone fudges it and this is essentially how he got fired. USCIS knows that if they dig hard into someones file they will find something.
Many people don't really understand the investigative powers uscis has or the extent they will go through. if person fakes paystubs to do an h-1b transfer; well uscis issues rfe's asking for a listing of all h-1b employees and payments made to each employee for last two years. I have seen them inter-relate this information for people who have faked these types of things.
Recently; I saw uscis california service center request state unemployment compensation reports for all employees for wages paid for the last two years. the service center actually picked four people who were paid substantially less and pulled their h-1b files and pointed this out in their denial that they coudn't trust the companies assertions on the LCA and they had to deny the petition for the current beneficiary.
All these talks of lawsuits, etc; will just make them dig in their heels more and find more things and make it more and more difficult.
Frankly, this is very very scary - I do not know what to say here. As per law, USCIS should only worry about what happenned after the last lawful admission into United States. But they can find any number of small faults in a application - after all, the application is so comprehensive that it is biased towards making small mistakes. This may not be true for people who get GC within the first 2-3 years in US but for others, they have a long enough history in US such that they will be pre-disposed to making errors.
It is best to be up front about a situation if one gets an RFE - even if one has violated certain laws, it is better to admit that and convince the officer about the circumstances leading to such violation.
My earnest prayers with you - please find a good lawyer to represent your case.
more...
house figure human heart Because
unseenguy
06-26 05:07 PM
Again where are you getting that 550K value for a house from . The houses that were 500K two years back are now 400 - 450K ( exclude the extremes ). Why the HOA - can't the house be a single family home like most of US .
Taxes - well I was not saying you get the whole money back but are taxes the only reason one should not buy a house ?
Housing price correction has already happened in most of the good areas. If you think that they are going to go down 20% more that is never going to happen. People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
pandeyji, please dont jump to conclusion. The "kind" of house I want to live in is 550K now. I dont know how much was it 2 years back. I live in Seattle, where prices started to fall only late last year and this year when MSFT , Boeing and Starbucks announced layoffs.
I agree that there are some places now such as : NC, SC, FL, MI , OH, TX, MN etc are good places to buy. CA , OR, NV, AZ and WA have vast supply of inventories.
When I say I am expecting 20% correction, I am not speculating in blind. I have seen the data on zillow.com where they tell you last price the house was sold for, the date and current price. Zillow also tells you what is their estimate you should offer in current market conditions and how much correction, upward or downward have they seen in last 3 months.
Now for eg: I see houses from 1999 where they sold for 250-300 K and owners of the same property now expect 550-600K in 2009.
Now if I do a rent vs buy, I must offer this guy 400K-420K (max) for it to be profitable for me in 5-7 years against the current rent. Also majority of the houses have HOAs here in WA metro areas. Some are high and some are low.
Again if I have any realistic chance for this guy to take my offer in good faith, he must bring down the cost to 450K. Then 400-420K is a doable deal.
If the seller is serious, there is no reason why he will not accept a 420K offer because there is abundant oversupply in the market. He can hold out for 2 years but a distressed or needful seller will have to sell home for that price because he might get only 1-2 offers in a month or few months.
Even in my own community, people are expecting 350 K for a condo with 280 HOA, do you think, I can offer them 270K? Only then the rent/buy will make sense for me in next 5 years (and to be honest I dont plan to live in a town home for 30 years).
I have given you enough numbers, do the math, lets not bring emotional sentiment into this.
Taxes - well I was not saying you get the whole money back but are taxes the only reason one should not buy a house ?
Housing price correction has already happened in most of the good areas. If you think that they are going to go down 20% more that is never going to happen. People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
pandeyji, please dont jump to conclusion. The "kind" of house I want to live in is 550K now. I dont know how much was it 2 years back. I live in Seattle, where prices started to fall only late last year and this year when MSFT , Boeing and Starbucks announced layoffs.
I agree that there are some places now such as : NC, SC, FL, MI , OH, TX, MN etc are good places to buy. CA , OR, NV, AZ and WA have vast supply of inventories.
When I say I am expecting 20% correction, I am not speculating in blind. I have seen the data on zillow.com where they tell you last price the house was sold for, the date and current price. Zillow also tells you what is their estimate you should offer in current market conditions and how much correction, upward or downward have they seen in last 3 months.
Now for eg: I see houses from 1999 where they sold for 250-300 K and owners of the same property now expect 550-600K in 2009.
Now if I do a rent vs buy, I must offer this guy 400K-420K (max) for it to be profitable for me in 5-7 years against the current rent. Also majority of the houses have HOAs here in WA metro areas. Some are high and some are low.
Again if I have any realistic chance for this guy to take my offer in good faith, he must bring down the cost to 450K. Then 400-420K is a doable deal.
If the seller is serious, there is no reason why he will not accept a 420K offer because there is abundant oversupply in the market. He can hold out for 2 years but a distressed or needful seller will have to sell home for that price because he might get only 1-2 offers in a month or few months.
Even in my own community, people are expecting 350 K for a condo with 280 HOA, do you think, I can offer them 270K? Only then the rent/buy will make sense for me in next 5 years (and to be honest I dont plan to live in a town home for 30 years).
I have given you enough numbers, do the math, lets not bring emotional sentiment into this.
tattoo the heart valve of human
waitnwatch
08-05 07:28 PM
I had tried to frame the debate in my previous post which is quoted below. Never received as much as a yay or nay from anyone. On the other hand there are enough folks with a lot of bluster and rhetoric to keep the storm in the teacup going.
It should be obvious that the USCIS doesn't make changes because we spit fire on this forum.
That is exactly why we would be better of trying to use this forum for honing our arguments instead of punching imaginary bags and getting all riled up.
This is probably my last post on this topic but I'll sure be visiting to enjoy all the shouting and screaming!
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
Here's the logic behind this debate as I see it (not that there is much logic in the way the immigration laws/rules are framed)
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
It should be obvious that the USCIS doesn't make changes because we spit fire on this forum.
That is exactly why we would be better of trying to use this forum for honing our arguments instead of punching imaginary bags and getting all riled up.
This is probably my last post on this topic but I'll sure be visiting to enjoy all the shouting and screaming!
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
Here's the logic behind this debate as I see it (not that there is much logic in the way the immigration laws/rules are framed)
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
more...
pictures Human+heart+anatomy+
JEESEE
04-01 03:20 PM
My wife got same RFE asking for her medicals to be done as we couldnt do it at the time of 485 Filing. My Wife was expecting when we went for the Medical so the Doctor didnt give her the vaccines. our PD is Oct 2006.
Some thing must be happening at USCIS side. Good.....OR.....Bad!!!! You decide.
Some thing must be happening at USCIS side. Good.....OR.....Bad!!!! You decide.
dresses of the Heart Valve Bank at
nozerd
12-28 09:08 PM
I believe in the maxim that you cant control how others act. You can only control how you react. This is what India should do in the short and medium term that they do have full control over.
SHORT TERM.
I think the easiest thing India can do to send a message is to break off complete diplomatic relations with Pakistan.
a) Recall the Ambassador permanantly and close down the High Commision.
b) Ban anyone who owns (or has in the past owned) a Pakistani passport from entering India under any circumstances- exceptions need to be signed off by the External Affairs Minister himself)
c) Not allow Indians to travel to Pakistan ( Place a stamp on all passports saying entry to Pakistan not allowed - similar to what we had for South Africa 15-20 yrs ago).
d) Make it an obvious point to boycott any forum Pak is speaking on. So if the Paki guy is speaking at the UN or SAARC the Indian delegation just leaves the room.
e) Ignore PAK to the point that it doesnt exist.
MEDIUM TERM
a) Deal with internal security. Recruit and fill the Army and Intelligence agencies that are short staffed. If the trainers are not there get countries like Israel and Russia to train them or get ex US and UK army commandoes pay them the market fee and get them trained.
b) Recruit a cadre of Indian Muslims in the IB. Get people who are Hafez (trained well in the Koran) and who are both strong muslims and patriotic Indians. Send them to Pak as sleeping agents and destabilize Pak from the inside. Infiltrate these terrorists.
c) Leverage our influence and clout. If company X sells to Pak they can forget about any Indian company doing business with them. Pressurise govts not to allow their firms to sell to Pak.
d) Build a cadre of polished charismatic foreign service officers with the gift of gab like Pak has. The day after the Bombay incident Pak had started working the media/ talk show circuit in the US with their honey tounged reps. They always seem to do a great job with PR while India is sleeping. Ban SC quota types from joining the IFS.
SHORT TERM.
I think the easiest thing India can do to send a message is to break off complete diplomatic relations with Pakistan.
a) Recall the Ambassador permanantly and close down the High Commision.
b) Ban anyone who owns (or has in the past owned) a Pakistani passport from entering India under any circumstances- exceptions need to be signed off by the External Affairs Minister himself)
c) Not allow Indians to travel to Pakistan ( Place a stamp on all passports saying entry to Pakistan not allowed - similar to what we had for South Africa 15-20 yrs ago).
d) Make it an obvious point to boycott any forum Pak is speaking on. So if the Paki guy is speaking at the UN or SAARC the Indian delegation just leaves the room.
e) Ignore PAK to the point that it doesnt exist.
MEDIUM TERM
a) Deal with internal security. Recruit and fill the Army and Intelligence agencies that are short staffed. If the trainers are not there get countries like Israel and Russia to train them or get ex US and UK army commandoes pay them the market fee and get them trained.
b) Recruit a cadre of Indian Muslims in the IB. Get people who are Hafez (trained well in the Koran) and who are both strong muslims and patriotic Indians. Send them to Pak as sleeping agents and destabilize Pak from the inside. Infiltrate these terrorists.
c) Leverage our influence and clout. If company X sells to Pak they can forget about any Indian company doing business with them. Pressurise govts not to allow their firms to sell to Pak.
d) Build a cadre of polished charismatic foreign service officers with the gift of gab like Pak has. The day after the Bombay incident Pak had started working the media/ talk show circuit in the US with their honey tounged reps. They always seem to do a great job with PR while India is sleeping. Ban SC quota types from joining the IFS.
more...
makeup Grow Human Heart Valve
riva2005
05-16 06:51 PM
It is very simple -- the 'consulting on the bench' business is ILLEGAL. You can have any opinion on it you wan't, but the bottom line is it is against the law. If you can't meet the legal requirements, you shouldn't be here in the first place.
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
Ok fine. you are right. I am wrong. I have run out of arguments and unless I repeat them like you are repeating them, I dont have anything new to add. Go and support the Durbin-Grassley bill. Make phone calls and write letters to other lawmakers and tell them that Durbin-Grassley is a good idea.
Thanks for listening and responding so far.
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
Ok fine. you are right. I am wrong. I have run out of arguments and unless I repeat them like you are repeating them, I dont have anything new to add. Go and support the Durbin-Grassley bill. Make phone calls and write letters to other lawmakers and tell them that Durbin-Grassley is a good idea.
Thanks for listening and responding so far.
girlfriend the human heart labeled
abracadabra102
07-14 07:28 PM
We are old horses fo IV and dont have an agenda against any particular groups or category..all that we are trying to highlight is that our situation since 01..that's it...that having said the people will who are have been objecting to this will get thier GC's this time and will be gone ...and we in EB-3 2002 have to wait for another 2-3 years to get out turn..Can you imagine our situation..So please support this initiative...send out the letters...
God bless us all!
pani,
This is what you have in the draft letter.
"Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003 when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from Top US universities) our green card labors applications were sent back from DOL saying that the economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 NON- RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years."
Do you have any evidence/reference to back this up?
God bless us all!
pani,
This is what you have in the draft letter.
"Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003 when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from Top US universities) our green card labors applications were sent back from DOL saying that the economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 NON- RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years."
Do you have any evidence/reference to back this up?
hairstyles The normal human heart
Macaca
03-05 09:08 AM
Some paras from Slowing Down The Revolving Door (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401201.html)
A House committee has approved legislation that would lengthen employment restrictions for federal procurement officials who take certain jobs when they leave government, from one year to two years. It also would prohibit newly hired procurement officials from awarding contracts to their former employers for two years.
Tightening employment restrictions will bring more accountability to government, contends Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Recent lobbying and procurement scandals are proof that something needs to be done, he points out.
Congress has been trying to regulate the revolving door -- the rotation of federal officials and business executives into and out of government -- since at least 1872, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Over the decades, Congress has sought to protect the government from former employees who took sensitive information with them and used it to promote the interests of a private party. Congress also has devised rules to discourage federal employees from cashing in on their inside knowledge or becoming snarled in conflicts of interest with companies doing business with the government.
A House committee has approved legislation that would lengthen employment restrictions for federal procurement officials who take certain jobs when they leave government, from one year to two years. It also would prohibit newly hired procurement officials from awarding contracts to their former employers for two years.
Tightening employment restrictions will bring more accountability to government, contends Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Recent lobbying and procurement scandals are proof that something needs to be done, he points out.
Congress has been trying to regulate the revolving door -- the rotation of federal officials and business executives into and out of government -- since at least 1872, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Over the decades, Congress has sought to protect the government from former employees who took sensitive information with them and used it to promote the interests of a private party. Congress also has devised rules to discourage federal employees from cashing in on their inside knowledge or becoming snarled in conflicts of interest with companies doing business with the government.
senthil1
12-17 02:27 PM
It is true that 99.99% of Muslims are not terrorists. But 99.99% of World's hardcore terrorists are Muslims.
What has this to do with immigration ??? Does Antulay support EB2/EB3 reforms ? Do he mention anything about wasted visa numbers.
This is not a place to post/preach religious, spiritual believes unless it gets you the Green Card. If many Indians visit this forum, it does not become hosting agent for your thoughts. Now don't waste your time and server hard disk space posting something back on this thread.
What has this to do with immigration ??? Does Antulay support EB2/EB3 reforms ? Do he mention anything about wasted visa numbers.
This is not a place to post/preach religious, spiritual believes unless it gets you the Green Card. If many Indians visit this forum, it does not become hosting agent for your thoughts. Now don't waste your time and server hard disk space posting something back on this thread.
zxcvb
07-17 10:37 PM
Hi UN,
What if the employee gets paid less than what is mentioned on the LCA on H1. Is that considered Out of Status?
Thanks in advance
What if the employee gets paid less than what is mentioned on the LCA on H1. Is that considered Out of Status?
Thanks in advance