gc28262
06-15 04:22 PM
Ivar and group,
...............................
My suggestion here is that let the outsourcers take the hit. They have always benefitted by flouting the rules. If your concern is way too high for your L1 brothers then you would find it prudent to bring in the law that clearly states "Pay high wages for the L1s or dont bring them in here". ..........................................
dilipcr,
Please wake up from your dream. No matter how you want it, outsourcing won't go away.
Outsourcing companies will always provide a lower cost to client as long as dollar is valuable than rupee ( or any other developing world currency).
They can do this by one of the following ways.
Use L1s for client site assignments. Some of these maybe illegal. Still they do it. Client is happy, outsourcers are happy.
Let us say everybody complains to ICE about this and L1 visas are unavailable for outsourcers. Their next strategy is to change the ratio of onsite resources to offshore resources. Again they will offer a cheaper solution to client. For executing a project in onsite/offshore model they don't need all these L1 guys here. They just need a few managers and maybe some team leads. They can execute the project with minumum resources onsite. Company and client wins again. The only reason they place so many resources onsite is to charge the client at dollar rate.
If US wants to prevent offshoring they have to ban offshoring explicitly. Doing so will go against the WTO rules.
To summarize, outsourcing cannot be stopped. Salary levels will always go down with time.
...............................
My suggestion here is that let the outsourcers take the hit. They have always benefitted by flouting the rules. If your concern is way too high for your L1 brothers then you would find it prudent to bring in the law that clearly states "Pay high wages for the L1s or dont bring them in here". ..........................................
dilipcr,
Please wake up from your dream. No matter how you want it, outsourcing won't go away.
Outsourcing companies will always provide a lower cost to client as long as dollar is valuable than rupee ( or any other developing world currency).
They can do this by one of the following ways.
Use L1s for client site assignments. Some of these maybe illegal. Still they do it. Client is happy, outsourcers are happy.
Let us say everybody complains to ICE about this and L1 visas are unavailable for outsourcers. Their next strategy is to change the ratio of onsite resources to offshore resources. Again they will offer a cheaper solution to client. For executing a project in onsite/offshore model they don't need all these L1 guys here. They just need a few managers and maybe some team leads. They can execute the project with minumum resources onsite. Company and client wins again. The only reason they place so many resources onsite is to charge the client at dollar rate.
If US wants to prevent offshoring they have to ban offshoring explicitly. Doing so will go against the WTO rules.
To summarize, outsourcing cannot be stopped. Salary levels will always go down with time.
wallpaper high tech wallpaper - Modern
Saralayar
01-27 12:45 PM
DPuranik,
You have provided a old URL link. Afterwards, the I-140 Premium is extended to all categories including labor substitution cases. Infact, Murthy website also updated that. If you are not sure, do some research on that topic and then post your views.
You have provided a old URL link. Afterwards, the I-140 Premium is extended to all categories including labor substitution cases. Infact, Murthy website also updated that. If you are not sure, do some research on that topic and then post your views.
gc_on_demand
09-14 03:41 PM
What are the hopes for individuals who missed Jul 07. In my case my labor got approved in Oct 07 and we are still waiting for the date to be current to be able to file for EAD / AP. Based on the figures that you show, I believe that all 2006 people should get cleared in the coming year and the traffic for 2007 & 2008 is quite less. What are the predictions for the PD movement till year end?
Your PD will be current by Sep 2010. Or if you are lucky you may get GC by that time.
If you get GC donate to IV.
Your PD will be current by Sep 2010. Or if you are lucky you may get GC by that time.
If you get GC donate to IV.
2011 abstract hi tech wallpaper
needhelp!
02-13 11:18 AM
Believe me, in my office or outside, I have talked to every Indian. And not one comes back n discusses with me about IV.
I strongly feel IV is doing a commendable job with some dedicated contributors.
Thank you brij523. You are a great supporter of our cause. I cannot forget how hard you worked at diwali mela in DFW even though you already got your GC. Its inspiration from people like you that keeps us going.
I strongly feel IV is doing a commendable job with some dedicated contributors.
Thank you brij523. You are a great supporter of our cause. I cannot forget how hard you worked at diwali mela in DFW even though you already got your GC. Its inspiration from people like you that keeps us going.
more...
alterego
02-13 10:56 PM
I doubt we can see a visa number increase until the CIR bus comes around again. It is anyones guess when that will be.
I think the only things that might stand a chance is visa recapture. If there are even 150-200K visas recaptured, this will tremendously improve retrogression for up to 2 years. Pressure is building on legislators from both employers and state gov't putting up arbitrary rules which are splitting communities. The enforcement approach taken by gov't is also giving pause for thought to some moderates on this issue. McCains ascension to republican nominee will serve to cool the temperature on this issue during the election season. Hopefully they can do something transitional in the interim which includes visa recapture.
After now 3 yrs of heavy retrogression, this is getting really bad.
I think the only things that might stand a chance is visa recapture. If there are even 150-200K visas recaptured, this will tremendously improve retrogression for up to 2 years. Pressure is building on legislators from both employers and state gov't putting up arbitrary rules which are splitting communities. The enforcement approach taken by gov't is also giving pause for thought to some moderates on this issue. McCains ascension to republican nominee will serve to cool the temperature on this issue during the election season. Hopefully they can do something transitional in the interim which includes visa recapture.
After now 3 yrs of heavy retrogression, this is getting really bad.
bestin
01-10 07:11 AM
Dont worry dude.my pd is eb2 Jul07 and my L1 expired in Dec.My company applied for my H1 in sep 09 and it was approved in 3 weeks without RFE. Some of my friends in consulting got RFEs for renewal but was eventually approved atleast until the date of contract.
Hello Gurus,
My priority date is Aug 11 , 2006(EB2) and my 6 year H1B ends Sept 2011. Is there any chance the priority dates will move to Aug 2006 levels in FY2010? Or in FY2011? I am really worried because these days people are getting rejections for H1 renewals. When my time comes for renewal I want to have the EAD as a backup in case H1 renewal gets rejected.
Please let me know your thoughts on movement to Aug 2006 before Sept 2011.
Thanks.
Hello Gurus,
My priority date is Aug 11 , 2006(EB2) and my 6 year H1B ends Sept 2011. Is there any chance the priority dates will move to Aug 2006 levels in FY2010? Or in FY2011? I am really worried because these days people are getting rejections for H1 renewals. When my time comes for renewal I want to have the EAD as a backup in case H1 renewal gets rejected.
Please let me know your thoughts on movement to Aug 2006 before Sept 2011.
Thanks.
more...
gc28262
05-31 10:17 PM
WOW... what a logic... what does Indian Govt. has to do with this money when this is taken out of my pay cheque.
When I take this money back to India I probably would end up paying some taxes on it... not sure what the logic is behind this... (again I do not undertsand the full details behind it).
I think this is a requirement from US government that countries that need a SSA agreement with US needs to have a Social Security system.
Asking our SSA and Medicare back is a good strategy which will benefit us one way or other.
1. We will have an option of claiming our money back if we decide to return.
2. US gov will be forced to come up with a solution for our eternal wait for GC as US cannot afford to lose so much money from SS and Medicare funds.
When I take this money back to India I probably would end up paying some taxes on it... not sure what the logic is behind this... (again I do not undertsand the full details behind it).
I think this is a requirement from US government that countries that need a SSA agreement with US needs to have a Social Security system.
Asking our SSA and Medicare back is a good strategy which will benefit us one way or other.
1. We will have an option of claiming our money back if we decide to return.
2. US gov will be forced to come up with a solution for our eternal wait for GC as US cannot afford to lose so much money from SS and Medicare funds.
2010 my favorite hi-tec wallpaper
gcpool
03-20 10:03 AM
I have heard that Job are not easily available there and the taxes are high.
Think about it. I know people who have filed and almost got it and have decided to stay. (Waste of time and money).
Hi, I am seriously planning to start Canadian immigration after wasting 7 years of my life in chasing GC. Can anybody suggest some good lawyers/attorneies/agencies who are not money suckers like US immigration attornies ? Also, somebody mentioned that one can apply Can immigration by himself. Is there any issue with that ?
Thanks
Think about it. I know people who have filed and almost got it and have decided to stay. (Waste of time and money).
Hi, I am seriously planning to start Canadian immigration after wasting 7 years of my life in chasing GC. Can anybody suggest some good lawyers/attorneies/agencies who are not money suckers like US immigration attornies ? Also, somebody mentioned that one can apply Can immigration by himself. Is there any issue with that ?
Thanks
more...
lahiribaba
06-12 09:56 AM
Dude, Read Vivek Wadhwas findings carefully. He wants the best and the brightest to be provided unlimited visas. I agree with him completely. He is not for perpetual fraud and wage destruction as proferred by the outsourcing companies. Next time when you quote a defence, atleast quote something that supports your case not the opponent's :-)
You all can scream and shout all you want but
NOTHING IS GONNA STOP THE OFFSHORE OUTSOURCING TRAIN THATS ROLLING ROLLING ROLLING>>>>>>>>>
BECAUSE.>>>>>>>>>
OF THE SHEER SIZE OF INDIA'S POPULATION.....
10 YEARS FROM NOW IF YOU ARE IN IT YOUR BOSS WILL BE SITTING IN INDIA
You all can scream and shout all you want but
NOTHING IS GONNA STOP THE OFFSHORE OUTSOURCING TRAIN THATS ROLLING ROLLING ROLLING>>>>>>>>>
BECAUSE.>>>>>>>>>
OF THE SHEER SIZE OF INDIA'S POPULATION.....
10 YEARS FROM NOW IF YOU ARE IN IT YOUR BOSS WILL BE SITTING IN INDIA
hair Tags: dynamic, gray, hi-tech,
Lasantha
02-12 02:08 PM
Yeah, Tell me about it!!!
Just two more months and mine would have been current!!!!
correction: EB3 ROW = 01JAN05 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!
Just 1.25 more year and I would have been current! Damn!!!!
Just two more months and mine would have been current!!!!
correction: EB3 ROW = 01JAN05 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!
Just 1.25 more year and I would have been current! Damn!!!!
more...
villamonte6100
02-18 11:17 AM
(1) There was no shortage of laypeople and even attorneys who asserted that "USCIS isn't doing anything wrong they are just following the law" when it came to FBI name checks. Fortunately for all of us sharper legal brains and sharper judges prevailed, and brought us to this happy day.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
hot High-tech Building
vdlrao
07-16 06:05 PM
EB2 is current now..."EB2 will be current within a year" gives an impression that EB2 which is not current will get current in one year...
I mean EB2 India will be current with in a year.
I mean EB2 India will be current with in a year.
more...
house HI-TECH WALLPAPER.
Macaca
01-15 07:53 PM
I would argue that Indian consulting biggies saw that they could offer resources to clients at much cheaper rates than offered by American consulting companies. That drove down billing rates for everyone.
On the other hand if American consulting companies bill high rates to clients, they are at leat still paying decent wages to their employees. So wages stay at moderate levels. But what This whole tiered employement brought into play was that the actual employee was not getting paid too much but the client would still pay quite a bit, maybe not as much as what an American consulting company would bill. The wages of IT professionals went down.
Also one cannot deny the fact that persons who faked their resumes have contributed to the decline of the quality of talent pool. Don't get me wrong, bad apples existed and thrived in both big and small companies. But the occurences of such misdeed is/was more rampant in body shops. Some examples are the hiring of fresh grads & H4 & other unskilled workers and passing them off as "high skilled resource".
No one knows the impact of outsourcing. Because no public data is available unlike H1b or L1.
If american public gets exact data about outsourcing then they will oppose that also and goverment has to act.
But there is no legal binding for Government or Corporations to give data about outsourcing.
Durbin/Grassley bill will check them also. But it will impact some good people also. We are opposing that because many of IV members may be impacted by that.
Also most IV members feel that bill is conspiracy to eliminate h1b program. There is no easy solution for these issues.
If they relax the rules fraud will increase and if they tighten it then some good persons also impacted.
You have unbounded capacity for posting complete gargage.
My morning post, deleted by IV geniuses, was for this garbage that dominates IV boards: a self inflicted wound.
On the other hand if American consulting companies bill high rates to clients, they are at leat still paying decent wages to their employees. So wages stay at moderate levels. But what This whole tiered employement brought into play was that the actual employee was not getting paid too much but the client would still pay quite a bit, maybe not as much as what an American consulting company would bill. The wages of IT professionals went down.
Also one cannot deny the fact that persons who faked their resumes have contributed to the decline of the quality of talent pool. Don't get me wrong, bad apples existed and thrived in both big and small companies. But the occurences of such misdeed is/was more rampant in body shops. Some examples are the hiring of fresh grads & H4 & other unskilled workers and passing them off as "high skilled resource".
No one knows the impact of outsourcing. Because no public data is available unlike H1b or L1.
If american public gets exact data about outsourcing then they will oppose that also and goverment has to act.
But there is no legal binding for Government or Corporations to give data about outsourcing.
Durbin/Grassley bill will check them also. But it will impact some good people also. We are opposing that because many of IV members may be impacted by that.
Also most IV members feel that bill is conspiracy to eliminate h1b program. There is no easy solution for these issues.
If they relax the rules fraud will increase and if they tighten it then some good persons also impacted.
You have unbounded capacity for posting complete gargage.
My morning post, deleted by IV geniuses, was for this garbage that dominates IV boards: a self inflicted wound.
tattoo high-tech
jsb
06-08 10:59 AM
:) I thought it was understood by now, that without changes in law, there is no "speedup" (for 485 approvals). USCIS has been super efficient recently, what is missing is the "visa number".
Trying to change laws sensitive to long term residents and citizens, by those wanting to be residents is a tough task. What is possible, which we should keep trying for, is to make suitable interpretive changes, in the form of clarifications, which do not appear to be a major shift to what have been US long term policies.
For example, trying to do away with country quota would be very hard, as it is so sensitive for the main stream residents. Making it apply in overall immigration from a country rather than I-485 cases might work. Strong argument could be that EB I-485 candidates are highly qualified and are living in the US anyway. Therefore, applying any diversity rule on them does not make sense. However, country quota may continue to be applied for those who are not yet in the US, i.e. family based cases, or those EB candidates applying from their home countries with appropriate prioritization (for example, spouse joining may get highest priority).
Trying to change laws sensitive to long term residents and citizens, by those wanting to be residents is a tough task. What is possible, which we should keep trying for, is to make suitable interpretive changes, in the form of clarifications, which do not appear to be a major shift to what have been US long term policies.
For example, trying to do away with country quota would be very hard, as it is so sensitive for the main stream residents. Making it apply in overall immigration from a country rather than I-485 cases might work. Strong argument could be that EB I-485 candidates are highly qualified and are living in the US anyway. Therefore, applying any diversity rule on them does not make sense. However, country quota may continue to be applied for those who are not yet in the US, i.e. family based cases, or those EB candidates applying from their home countries with appropriate prioritization (for example, spouse joining may get highest priority).
more...
pictures Masterpieces Future Hi-Tech
aranya
12-14 04:13 PM
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
Dakota Newfie
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
I understand how the current system prevents people of one nationality obtaining all the visas but I am not sure how it prevents any one group or sector monopolizing. Care to clarify?
Dakota Newfie
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
I understand how the current system prevents people of one nationality obtaining all the visas but I am not sure how it prevents any one group or sector monopolizing. Care to clarify?
dresses stock vector : Blue hi-tech
sledge_hammer
02-16 08:27 AM
Great find!
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
more...
makeup hitech wallpaper background
samay
07-28 04:39 PM
I have my EB3-RIR pending at NSC with PD JAN 2004. I-140 concurrently filed on July 23rd 2007 at NSC is still pending. I do have the EAD and AP approved.
I have another EB2 labor (PERM) certified but its I-140 was denied on the basis of qualification. I have 3 yr B.Sc + 2 Yr. Post Graduate Diploma from India. This labor was certified on Dec. 26th 2006 and I-140 was denied last year after replying to the RFE raised regarding qualification. USCIS was looking for 4 yrs. degree instead of 3 yrs. They didn't accept my 2 yrs. post graduate on top of my 3 yrs. B.Sc degree.
My question: Is it advisable to go ahead and revive this PERM labor to file fresh I-140 again? If Yes, then what all I should do before filing the fresh I-140? I have almost 8 years of work experience in USA beside my 3+2 years degree from India.
Please advise.
Was your 8 year experience not mentioned in the I-140 application. To give you a clear answer on your options i will have to go through your documents.
I have another EB2 labor (PERM) certified but its I-140 was denied on the basis of qualification. I have 3 yr B.Sc + 2 Yr. Post Graduate Diploma from India. This labor was certified on Dec. 26th 2006 and I-140 was denied last year after replying to the RFE raised regarding qualification. USCIS was looking for 4 yrs. degree instead of 3 yrs. They didn't accept my 2 yrs. post graduate on top of my 3 yrs. B.Sc degree.
My question: Is it advisable to go ahead and revive this PERM labor to file fresh I-140 again? If Yes, then what all I should do before filing the fresh I-140? I have almost 8 years of work experience in USA beside my 3+2 years degree from India.
Please advise.
Was your 8 year experience not mentioned in the I-140 application. To give you a clear answer on your options i will have to go through your documents.
girlfriend stock vector : Hi tech blue
newtoearth
05-02 03:13 PM
....
hairstyles high tech wallpaper.
okuzmin
05-25 12:34 PM
I provided a statement of funds with the original application. They asked for an updated statement when they sent a request for medicals and updated FBI fingerprints. So, you'll most probably have to provide a letter from your bank twice.
Macaca
01-28 04:53 PM
USCIS was trying to abolish this substitution. The lawyer lobby opposed it.
How do lawyers benefit from it? Thanks.
How do lawyers benefit from it? Thanks.
snathan
03-29 10:28 PM
(Though I would also like to see this forum used only for immigration matters..)
Thought of adding in few more points..
So what kind of visionary are you looking for.If we make the current govt's performance as a basis then is it someone like this:
One who questions existence of Rama , makes a success of Sethu samudram project pulling down Ram Sethu thus hitting the sentiments of the Hindus in the Hindu dominated land.
One who arrests Sankaracharya (both semior/junior acharyas)based on suspected conspiracy angle on Deepavali eve and holds him in Jail for 60 days , bringing interruption to the Chandramauleswar puja that has been consistently conducted in the Mutt for 2,500 years (it's another thing nothing was proved for almost 5 years now)
One who abuses Sadhvi Pragnya Thakur with evil intent to bring up something called Hindu terrorism,conduct 4 (not 1/2) narco tests apart from other unmentionable things.
One who overlooks the murder of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati.
one who set's up conversion camps in Tirumala.
All of them state sponsored.
(On a side note:If Hindus' protest against these acts call them communal, it they don't call them spineless.
It's like Hindus in Hindu dominated land are damned if they do ,damned if they don't)
Well of course none of the Hindu's did anything when all these things were going on.It's another thing that they don't get any credit for their communal harmony kind of nature. Some how the de facto image has to be demonic Hindus who are in majority in India discriminate and hate minorities.)
Mumbai terror attacks, Controversial nuke deal, bomb blasts in 5/6 other cities.
All other candidates in the above poll will surely give some what better performance than this if made PM.
For those who don't know and who are backing Manmohan Singh he never contested any elecetion so far and he is also not fighting these elections.He is taking Rjay Sabha route again. Don't know at what gun point Sonia Gandhi is holding him but this guy actually wants to retire after having had so many major surgeries all his , one more recently.
Buzz is also that if UPA wins Manmhona singh will be made PM and after some time will be replaced with Rahul Gandhi.So it's all hog wash.
I am looking for a visionary who can bring Indians out of poverty, who can give good education, security, health care and good infrastructure. Who can save us from the unstable countries and aggressive China. I am not bothering whether Sankaracharya is in jail or not. How its going to affect a common man who is begging even for basic amenities.
Thought of adding in few more points..
So what kind of visionary are you looking for.If we make the current govt's performance as a basis then is it someone like this:
One who questions existence of Rama , makes a success of Sethu samudram project pulling down Ram Sethu thus hitting the sentiments of the Hindus in the Hindu dominated land.
One who arrests Sankaracharya (both semior/junior acharyas)based on suspected conspiracy angle on Deepavali eve and holds him in Jail for 60 days , bringing interruption to the Chandramauleswar puja that has been consistently conducted in the Mutt for 2,500 years (it's another thing nothing was proved for almost 5 years now)
One who abuses Sadhvi Pragnya Thakur with evil intent to bring up something called Hindu terrorism,conduct 4 (not 1/2) narco tests apart from other unmentionable things.
One who overlooks the murder of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati.
one who set's up conversion camps in Tirumala.
All of them state sponsored.
(On a side note:If Hindus' protest against these acts call them communal, it they don't call them spineless.
It's like Hindus in Hindu dominated land are damned if they do ,damned if they don't)
Well of course none of the Hindu's did anything when all these things were going on.It's another thing that they don't get any credit for their communal harmony kind of nature. Some how the de facto image has to be demonic Hindus who are in majority in India discriminate and hate minorities.)
Mumbai terror attacks, Controversial nuke deal, bomb blasts in 5/6 other cities.
All other candidates in the above poll will surely give some what better performance than this if made PM.
For those who don't know and who are backing Manmohan Singh he never contested any elecetion so far and he is also not fighting these elections.He is taking Rjay Sabha route again. Don't know at what gun point Sonia Gandhi is holding him but this guy actually wants to retire after having had so many major surgeries all his , one more recently.
Buzz is also that if UPA wins Manmhona singh will be made PM and after some time will be replaced with Rahul Gandhi.So it's all hog wash.
I am looking for a visionary who can bring Indians out of poverty, who can give good education, security, health care and good infrastructure. Who can save us from the unstable countries and aggressive China. I am not bothering whether Sankaracharya is in jail or not. How its going to affect a common man who is begging even for basic amenities.
0 comments:
Post a Comment