tooclose
07-13 07:14 AM
What is the need for all this ? The visa bulletin is out but no one cares to read it I guess. Every bulletin has these or words to this effect.
"Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number."
So the date that you see in the table is NOT eligible for visa numbers.
Thanks for the information. I believe I have to wait for another month to get any updates from the Sep visa bulletin or wait till same time next year since my PD is Mar-06.
Congrats to all to have received it and good luck to those who have become current !
"Only applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may be allotted a number."
So the date that you see in the table is NOT eligible for visa numbers.
Thanks for the information. I believe I have to wait for another month to get any updates from the Sep visa bulletin or wait till same time next year since my PD is Mar-06.
Congrats to all to have received it and good luck to those who have become current !
wallpaper Rayman Raving Rabbids 2
greyhair
03-12 11:44 AM
I completely agree with you. By the way, why are you not a donor?
I was been a donor in the past. But since then I noticed all this and have written several emails to IV asking them to convert IV access to paid donors only otherwise freeloaders like you are eating my lunch.
I was been a donor in the past. But since then I noticed all this and have written several emails to IV asking them to convert IV access to paid donors only otherwise freeloaders like you are eating my lunch.
485InDreams
09-26 09:33 AM
I jus send the mail to editor...
I've also send the link to businessweek and Nytimes..where they have written it correctly...
I've also send the link to businessweek and Nytimes..where they have written it correctly...
2011 Rayman Raving Rabbids TV Party
Administrator2
06-10 09:20 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE. WE WILL ALSO START WITH THE PHONE CAMPAIGN IN THE MORNING.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
more...
nandakumar
07-12 06:14 PM
Like wise :rolleyes:
All right I am current again..exactly after 2 years
So I am having the butterflies in my tummy with nostalgia of my nail biting thriller during 2008 July-Sep bulletin, where I got royally screwed.
mwuahhhaaaa...c'mon..come to papa now :D:D
tick..tock..tick..tock :rolleyes:
All right I am current again..exactly after 2 years
So I am having the butterflies in my tummy with nostalgia of my nail biting thriller during 2008 July-Sep bulletin, where I got royally screwed.
mwuahhhaaaa...c'mon..come to papa now :D:D
tick..tock..tick..tock :rolleyes:
![rayman raving rabbids 2. [GC07] Rayman Raving Rabbids 2](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u8Wj-QkXN5kWs1bNJIaLXy2WNlkd08XP_buAe9jwUlE9mZ_zuaks7NcE3pMAQy-yLgpi89MtdPQJYbevwQuPa0C1aBkZrmbAspg7Cf24wENpeb1vZFD8MlxTwjhIJNda-0M5xshDuMI0JE_l0=s0-d "[GC07] Rayman Raving Rabbids 2")
bobbydalal
08-21 04:32 PM
luvchoclates ,
Hi first of all hats off to u for what u doing for someone whom u r even not related. All i can say is its really hard for someof these pepole to b in ur shoes n do half not more of what u have done. All i can say is i know of a real top notch lawyer and who has got green card done for most of my employees and is really good at what she does. U can either email me at vaishconsulting@hotmail.com and ill give u her # and put in a word to her for u and go frm there.
all the best
Hi first of all hats off to u for what u doing for someone whom u r even not related. All i can say is its really hard for someof these pepole to b in ur shoes n do half not more of what u have done. All i can say is i know of a real top notch lawyer and who has got green card done for most of my employees and is really good at what she does. U can either email me at vaishconsulting@hotmail.com and ill give u her # and put in a word to her for u and go frm there.
all the best
more...
Jaani
07-03 01:29 PM
Contributed $100.
Order Details - Jul 3, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
Google Order #222021463879830
Order Details - Jul 3, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
Google Order #222021463879830
2010 Rayman: Raving Rabbids TV
bigboy007
06-11 12:36 PM
Don’t think you understand so let me give it a shot.
Let’s be smart, think for ourselves and act on our own behalf to send simple message requesting the Senate offices to oppose this amendment. What is so complicated about this? And if you don't want to participate, that's fine, but why would you discourage others from sending a simple message to the Senators from their state? Don't you have anything better to do?
Great explanation , Thank you for posting.
Let’s be smart, think for ourselves and act on our own behalf to send simple message requesting the Senate offices to oppose this amendment. What is so complicated about this? And if you don't want to participate, that's fine, but why would you discourage others from sending a simple message to the Senators from their state? Don't you have anything better to do?
Great explanation , Thank you for posting.
more...
thomasstuart
11-25 07:08 AM
Thanks a million. Very useful indeed. I've taken a quick look at the links and I think this could be quite an interesting path to follow. Once again thankyou very much.
hair of Rayman Raving Rabbids 2
alisa
01-20 02:15 AM
Man....
You guys (from India) are in a really really terrible situation.
First column shows the year. Second one estimates applicants for GC from India. Third (Years to Clear) one divides backlog by 10000 to estimate the number of years needed too clear that backlog, assuming 10000 visa numbers released per year. Fourth (Year cleared) adds that number to the Year column to give the year you can get your GC. Finally, assuming that AC21 added a year's worth of supply of visa numbers, a year is taken out from the final estimate.
Also dependents are not included in the calculations. Send them back.
Here is how I estimated backlogs. Backlogs for 2001 and 2002 are taken from jungalee43 posting.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
For years 2003 and forward,
a) 65000 applicants for H-1 assumed
b) 40 percent of these assumed to be Indians (26000)
c) 75 % of these 26000 assumed to have applied for and made it past the I-140 stage, i.e. 19500 added annually since 2003.
d) Each year, 10000 visa numbers allotted to Indians. (Assumption: Indians don't have any dependents. If you want to include dependents, 2001 backlog clears in 2023, and 2006 backlog clears in 2055)
Here are the results.
Year Backlog YTC YC AC21
2001 123194 12.3194 2012 2011
2002 160274 16.0274 2016 2015
2003 169774 16.9774 2016 2015
2004 179274 17.9274 2020 2019
2005 188774 18.8774 2020 2019
2006 198274 19.8274 2024 2023
2007 207774 20.7774 2024 2023
2008 217274 21.7274 2028 2027
2009 226774 22.6774 2028 2027
2010 236274 23.6274 2032 2031
Feel free to improve on this.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
You guys (from India) are in a really really terrible situation.
First column shows the year. Second one estimates applicants for GC from India. Third (Years to Clear) one divides backlog by 10000 to estimate the number of years needed too clear that backlog, assuming 10000 visa numbers released per year. Fourth (Year cleared) adds that number to the Year column to give the year you can get your GC. Finally, assuming that AC21 added a year's worth of supply of visa numbers, a year is taken out from the final estimate.
Also dependents are not included in the calculations. Send them back.
Here is how I estimated backlogs. Backlogs for 2001 and 2002 are taken from jungalee43 posting.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
For years 2003 and forward,
a) 65000 applicants for H-1 assumed
b) 40 percent of these assumed to be Indians (26000)
c) 75 % of these 26000 assumed to have applied for and made it past the I-140 stage, i.e. 19500 added annually since 2003.
d) Each year, 10000 visa numbers allotted to Indians. (Assumption: Indians don't have any dependents. If you want to include dependents, 2001 backlog clears in 2023, and 2006 backlog clears in 2055)
Here are the results.
Year Backlog YTC YC AC21
2001 123194 12.3194 2012 2011
2002 160274 16.0274 2016 2015
2003 169774 16.9774 2016 2015
2004 179274 17.9274 2020 2019
2005 188774 18.8774 2020 2019
2006 198274 19.8274 2024 2023
2007 207774 20.7774 2024 2023
2008 217274 21.7274 2028 2027
2009 226774 22.6774 2028 2027
2010 236274 23.6274 2032 2031
Feel free to improve on this.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
more...
DarkChild
03-12 09:03 AM
great work all of you guys, my choice was between grinch's and thirdworldman. i voted thirdworldman, but i just wanna say i know grinch hasn't done this a lot, so i think you've done an excellent job man :thumb:
hot of Rayman Raving Rabbids 2
GCard_Dream
03-18 05:35 PM
If that is the case, I am not sure why China didn't even move a single day. From the example, China should have gotten half of the unused visas. :confused:
This is the post from Ron:
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
This is the post from Ron:
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
more...
house Rayman Raving Rabbids 2
waitnwatch
04-07 07:25 PM
.... One cannot argue (or complaint with the supervisor) with them in the long line at POE to ask them to follow the rules and regulations; or you do not have your lawyer standing next to you in the line. You do not have much option at POE. ...
A few years back the IO's at Portland Oregon started harassing visitors. A Chinese businesswoman was sent back for no apparent reason. This lady came back through LA and sued the USCIS. The upshot of what happened at Oregon was that all international flights stopped coming to Oregon. So I wonder if the IO's ultimately got to keep their jobs!
When you talk about "tremendous" power it is not as if the IO can just send someone home because the IO had a fight with his/her spouse. Sending someone back from the POE will have to be documented rigorously with specific reasons assigned. Therefore an IO can determine that a student or visitor is a potential immigrant but I'm sure that reasons have to be documented. With an H1-B that cannot be the case so the only check the IO can run is to ensure that the documents are genuine. Remember someone has to pay for a person to be sent back. An airlines get fined if they bring in someone without proper documents. So to cut the long story short - the IO has a lot of power in that they can go through a lot of details but sending someone back is a pretty serious thing as a diplomatic row can erupt. No IO would want to lose his job by meaninglessly and fraudulently sending someone back.
A few years back the IO's at Portland Oregon started harassing visitors. A Chinese businesswoman was sent back for no apparent reason. This lady came back through LA and sued the USCIS. The upshot of what happened at Oregon was that all international flights stopped coming to Oregon. So I wonder if the IO's ultimately got to keep their jobs!
When you talk about "tremendous" power it is not as if the IO can just send someone home because the IO had a fight with his/her spouse. Sending someone back from the POE will have to be documented rigorously with specific reasons assigned. Therefore an IO can determine that a student or visitor is a potential immigrant but I'm sure that reasons have to be documented. With an H1-B that cannot be the case so the only check the IO can run is to ensure that the documents are genuine. Remember someone has to pay for a person to be sent back. An airlines get fined if they bring in someone without proper documents. So to cut the long story short - the IO has a lot of power in that they can go through a lot of details but sending someone back is a pretty serious thing as a diplomatic row can erupt. No IO would want to lose his job by meaninglessly and fraudulently sending someone back.
tattoo [GC07] Rayman Raving Rabbids 2
LegalIndianInUSA
08-02 11:43 PM
Although they promise a lot of things on paper, we generally skip reading the fine print. Fine print generally would include this clause (language will be a bit different)...
"Although these are our policies, these might change at any time, with or without written notice".
End of story to all 'You promised me gold in your agreement' arguments.
There was no fine print on the appointment letter. There wasn't even fuzzy wording (like "we may" or "in most circumstances" etc).
Although I'm clearly educated about how the system works now, back then, at age 24, I wasn't. I was foolish enough to trust and believe that they would keep their word; they are after all, big multinational companies.
I don't want other young Indian/foreign immigrants to fall into the same predicament.
The sooner they realize that Human Resources is the most inhuman department in a company, the better.
Practically speaking, if you think from a company's perspective also, I don't blame them. Would you (Mr OP sir) be willing to invest in something that you are not sure that you will get profit from it? Like, you give me 100$, I may give it back+10%interest or may not give it back. If I want to give it back, I may give it back in 2yrs or even 30yrs, 100 yrs its upto me, depending on some citing of random comet I choose.
Same thing in company's point of view, if they invest in endless lawyer fees, filing fees, humongous paperwork and easily these days GC process take 5-35 years and during/after this time, What is the guarantee that you will still stick with the company - after all this investment of time & money? Companies need visible & predictable ROIs.
In large companies, the Legal department doesnt exist solely for GCs and Immigration related matters. The cost of immigration is barely a drop in the overall cost of maintaining such a department, and hence your logic is wrong.
It is an unfortunate truth we all need to get accustomed to live with.
No, we dont need to get accustomed to being lied to, or being treated as skilled slaves.
If you side with the law and say that the companies are not obligated to process GCs, then they should not be offering the same. Also, the law as it currently stands, is unjust and I'd much sooner see the law be changed to something like "if you've worked here for 6 years, paid taxes etc, then you can apply for a GC yourself based on just that"
I guess it is in our Indian blood to expect freebies/extra perks from government, from employers (being socialist, a bit communist country and what not), and we forget it is the FREE MARKET that rules here.
lol. Firstly, there is no such thing as a "free market". Wake up already.
Secondly, the US is more socialist than India is.
Thirdly, A GC is not a freebie/extra perk. A GC is a good-faith agreement between the company, the future employee and the governing body(USCIS), and companies should understand the ethical meaning of "good faith".
If your skills are in high demand, they will make you the king. If supply is high for your skills, they will go for someone cheaper..
Yea sure, I'd like to see all the high skilled kings that have been made by companies.
It is a fallacy that skill, intellect or IQ has meaning/importance in the US.
At the end of the day, you are just another desk jockey.
"Although these are our policies, these might change at any time, with or without written notice".
End of story to all 'You promised me gold in your agreement' arguments.
There was no fine print on the appointment letter. There wasn't even fuzzy wording (like "we may" or "in most circumstances" etc).
Although I'm clearly educated about how the system works now, back then, at age 24, I wasn't. I was foolish enough to trust and believe that they would keep their word; they are after all, big multinational companies.
I don't want other young Indian/foreign immigrants to fall into the same predicament.
The sooner they realize that Human Resources is the most inhuman department in a company, the better.
Practically speaking, if you think from a company's perspective also, I don't blame them. Would you (Mr OP sir) be willing to invest in something that you are not sure that you will get profit from it? Like, you give me 100$, I may give it back+10%interest or may not give it back. If I want to give it back, I may give it back in 2yrs or even 30yrs, 100 yrs its upto me, depending on some citing of random comet I choose.
Same thing in company's point of view, if they invest in endless lawyer fees, filing fees, humongous paperwork and easily these days GC process take 5-35 years and during/after this time, What is the guarantee that you will still stick with the company - after all this investment of time & money? Companies need visible & predictable ROIs.
In large companies, the Legal department doesnt exist solely for GCs and Immigration related matters. The cost of immigration is barely a drop in the overall cost of maintaining such a department, and hence your logic is wrong.
It is an unfortunate truth we all need to get accustomed to live with.
No, we dont need to get accustomed to being lied to, or being treated as skilled slaves.
If you side with the law and say that the companies are not obligated to process GCs, then they should not be offering the same. Also, the law as it currently stands, is unjust and I'd much sooner see the law be changed to something like "if you've worked here for 6 years, paid taxes etc, then you can apply for a GC yourself based on just that"
I guess it is in our Indian blood to expect freebies/extra perks from government, from employers (being socialist, a bit communist country and what not), and we forget it is the FREE MARKET that rules here.
lol. Firstly, there is no such thing as a "free market". Wake up already.
Secondly, the US is more socialist than India is.
Thirdly, A GC is not a freebie/extra perk. A GC is a good-faith agreement between the company, the future employee and the governing body(USCIS), and companies should understand the ethical meaning of "good faith".
If your skills are in high demand, they will make you the king. If supply is high for your skills, they will go for someone cheaper..
Yea sure, I'd like to see all the high skilled kings that have been made by companies.
It is a fallacy that skill, intellect or IQ has meaning/importance in the US.
At the end of the day, you are just another desk jockey.
more...
pictures Rayman Raving Rabbids 2
pappu
01-09 07:53 PM
thanks for pointing it out. We need volunteers to do this task. anyone interested pls sign up here and start posting.
dresses Rayman Raving Rabbids 8
coopheal
05-06 08:54 PM
We thought the same way 3 years ago, 2 years ago, and last year too, but nothing happened, it could be another year and we could be sitting here in same situation 2 years from now. Question is when IV has already collected money for FOIA request than why it is not proceeding in that direction ? We get it in time or not is not the question now....
If you had contributed for the FOIA effort you would have known the actions IV has taken in donor forum. Its a shame that people like you dont contribute and have audacity to come back and demand answers.
If you had contributed for the FOIA effort you would have known the actions IV has taken in donor forum. Its a shame that people like you dont contribute and have audacity to come back and demand answers.
more...
makeup TRAILER: Rayman Raving Rabbids
sugaur
05-28 09:44 PM
I Wish the border patrol was doing its job more efficiently and doing more searches not less. This way !@#$% illegals would be kicked out and our immigration process wouldnt be held hostage by them.
I live near the Mexican border. There are border check points everywhere when you leave the city. They will stop you, ask you your status. First time I didnt have my passport or anything. He checked my drivers license and politely reminded me about the requirement to carry immigration documents. Since then, I always carry a copy of passport and H1B and have never had any problems.
I hate it when people cry and feel like they are being persecuted when asked to follow the law.
I live near the Mexican border. There are border check points everywhere when you leave the city. They will stop you, ask you your status. First time I didnt have my passport or anything. He checked my drivers license and politely reminded me about the requirement to carry immigration documents. Since then, I always carry a copy of passport and H1B and have never had any problems.
I hate it when people cry and feel like they are being persecuted when asked to follow the law.
girlfriend Rayman Raving Rabbids 2
karmayogi
02-24 09:36 AM
Guys,
I can offer an extra bedroom with a queen bed to people coming from other places to the DC area for the advocacy event. Co-ordinators or interested parties please PM me and I can provide details.
Thanks
Yogi
I can offer an extra bedroom with a queen bed to people coming from other places to the DC area for the advocacy event. Co-ordinators or interested parties please PM me and I can provide details.
Thanks
Yogi
hairstyles Rayman Raving Rabbids 2 £8.99
yganreddy
07-07 03:54 AM
COngratulations. Enjoy your green.
Got approval emails yesterday.
PD Feb 2004
EB2 India
LC Approved 8/10/06
140 Approved 2/12/07
485 Filed on 6/27/07 NSC
Got approval emails yesterday.
PD Feb 2004
EB2 India
LC Approved 8/10/06
140 Approved 2/12/07
485 Filed on 6/27/07 NSC
bestia
01-19 03:54 PM
Its a matter of interpretation. Cops are not lawyers and neither am I. Arguing simply makes matters worse. None the less, you can argue as much as you want but if the cop has one on his mind and you have another, it certainly doesn't help your situation.
Of course. Judges are the ones who interpret the laws. Officers just do what they are instructed to do. My point was just out of curiosity, how I think this law is being interpreted.
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
Of course. Judges are the ones who interpret the laws. Officers just do what they are instructed to do. My point was just out of curiosity, how I think this law is being interpreted.
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
nivasch
12-13 10:43 AM
Hi, I am from NJ, srini_chenna@yahoo.com
:)
:)