sledge_hammer
03-24 02:42 PM
ganguteli:
Don't get me wrong, I feel you!
But, simply saying that the law took a long time to catch up hence we should be let to continue exploiting the loopholes will not get us too far. And I think this is what you are asking for.
We are here because USCIS allowed us to come here. We (employees, employers, immigration lawyers) should have done our due diligence in doing everything possible to protect ourselves against possible/potential audits and queries. Someone should have warned us that there is actually a difference between "temp job" and "full-time job" (EDITED: for GC requirements) like 20 years ago when this consulting business started. The very same people who did not warn us should actually have told us that LCA location is not to be taken lightly, that benching is not okay. All of these did not even occur to us when we enjoyed our lives in this nation.
Yes, USCIS is awake all of a sudden. They are enforcing rules all of a sudden. They are scrutinizing our application all of a sudden. Is that illegal for them to do it? NO. Can something be done to stop them? Certainly NOT. What could we have done to avoid getting into the soup? Should have seen this coming!!!!!!!!
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
Don't get me wrong, I feel you!
But, simply saying that the law took a long time to catch up hence we should be let to continue exploiting the loopholes will not get us too far. And I think this is what you are asking for.
We are here because USCIS allowed us to come here. We (employees, employers, immigration lawyers) should have done our due diligence in doing everything possible to protect ourselves against possible/potential audits and queries. Someone should have warned us that there is actually a difference between "temp job" and "full-time job" (EDITED: for GC requirements) like 20 years ago when this consulting business started. The very same people who did not warn us should actually have told us that LCA location is not to be taken lightly, that benching is not okay. All of these did not even occur to us when we enjoyed our lives in this nation.
Yes, USCIS is awake all of a sudden. They are enforcing rules all of a sudden. They are scrutinizing our application all of a sudden. Is that illegal for them to do it? NO. Can something be done to stop them? Certainly NOT. What could we have done to avoid getting into the soup? Should have seen this coming!!!!!!!!
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
wallpaper Is this a polish made gas mask
akred
04-09 12:06 AM
If this bill passes along with CIR, that gives the ability to file for 485 even without visa numbers being available, I think most of the placement companies would file for LC (PERM) as soon as they recruit someone (and get H1 approved). That would allow them to file for 140 and 485. Am I missing something here?
Yes, you are missing something. The processing times for LC(PERM) and for I-140 are not guaranteed. There will be trouble if either of these take an extended amount of time like the multi-year waits that we saw in the recent past. So, the ability to file I-485 without visa number availability will address current filers, but may not protect future filers.
Yes, you are missing something. The processing times for LC(PERM) and for I-140 are not guaranteed. There will be trouble if either of these take an extended amount of time like the multi-year waits that we saw in the recent past. So, the ability to file I-485 without visa number availability will address current filers, but may not protect future filers.
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
2011 help donning a gas mask
reedandbamboo
06-07 12:23 PM
I don't know where you can find 5% interest p.a. investment today but for the sake of argument that I found one, I think I can't get the $60k at the end of 10th yr.
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
more...
NKR
08-05 08:28 AM
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
I am EB2 and I do not support this idea. Just imagine, someone could have applied in EB3 though he was qualified for EB2 because he was ill advised by his lawyers or employers. Why should he be punished TWICE for no fault of his?.
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
I am EB2 and I do not support this idea. Just imagine, someone could have applied in EB3 though he was qualified for EB2 because he was ill advised by his lawyers or employers. Why should he be punished TWICE for no fault of his?.
rinku1112
12-28 03:24 PM
While I would love India to retaliate in some fashion on Paki soil to show them that there are going to be consequences for messing on Indian soil, I think this is not the time to strike overtly on Pakistan however.
Why now is not the right time?
Because this whole War hysteria is mostly being whipped by one side - Pakistan. Immediately after Mumbai atrocities there were street protests organized by Islamic fundoos like Jamat-ud-Dawa, JeM, etc in major cities in Pak to protest against India. They were supposedly protesting because India is going to attack Pakistan! Most Indians were amused at that time as they were busy attacking their own politicians at that time for their Intelligence failures. This shows to some extent that something else is going on here and Pakistan army or elements within it want tensions on Indian border.
Why will they want that on Indian border in case it boils over into a war that they will never win? Because the Americans on Pak's western border are putting a lot of pressure on Paki Army to attack the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalist nut cases that their own Intelligence arm - ISI - has helped train and arm. These nut cases are their assets for all the covert attacks on India to keep it tied down in Kashmir and elsewhere.
Besides they know that India will never attack and even if they did the International community will be pissing in their pants (including US) about the prospects of Nuclear armageddon and come to Pakis' rescue with a ceasefire call. Zardari and his Civilian Govt. Institutions will take the blame in Pakistan for succumbing to international pressure and stopping the brave Paki army from decimating kafir/powerless Indians. Army will announce a coup promising more security against India and overthrow Zardari/Gilani or whoever and entrench themselves again back in power for another decade.
What will America do?
US and rest of the world while shaking with fear about the nuclear war that was averted will start focusing foolishly (or maybe for their own clandestine gain) on Kashmir as the core issue and pressure India to give it freedom! What more does Paki army need? India-Pak hypenation is back so that Pakis feel important in International circles again. Tensions alive on their Eastern border to keep the army as center of focus and power internally in Pakistan. Covert terrorism in Kashmir will again resume with all the international attention on it, and Indian army and diplomacy is tied down there, and all the Taliban and other Islamic nut cases that they trained and armed have a cause to give up their worthless lives and not be fighting the Paki army for achieving their goal of going to heaven for quality time with some virgins.
Besides Americans dont care if Kashmir is blowing up - infact they would love to see an independant state their to get a leg firmly in South Asia.
So what should India do?
Not go to war overtly now. Start covert operations inside Pakistan on war footing and start funding and support for Balochi, Sindi, Mohajir, Pushtun, Baltistan freedom movements inside Pakistan. If there is any other terrorist attack in India, activate these people inside Pakistan to blow up their prime targets - Muridke headquarters of Jaamat-ud-Dawa for instance. Assinations of ISI officers, encourage suicide attacks on their army camps, cantonments. In other words make them feel the cost of any further attacks inside India, but covertly. And also take the covert proxy war to their soil.
For now, India should not attack Pakistan and give their army an excuse to squirm away from fighting their own created Franenstein monster - Islamic Jehadists on Western border. Indian army should sit back, relax and let the Paki army take their own creation on their Western front.
I hope the internal politics inside India dont come in the way of the above goal.
Why now is not the right time?
Because this whole War hysteria is mostly being whipped by one side - Pakistan. Immediately after Mumbai atrocities there were street protests organized by Islamic fundoos like Jamat-ud-Dawa, JeM, etc in major cities in Pak to protest against India. They were supposedly protesting because India is going to attack Pakistan! Most Indians were amused at that time as they were busy attacking their own politicians at that time for their Intelligence failures. This shows to some extent that something else is going on here and Pakistan army or elements within it want tensions on Indian border.
Why will they want that on Indian border in case it boils over into a war that they will never win? Because the Americans on Pak's western border are putting a lot of pressure on Paki Army to attack the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalist nut cases that their own Intelligence arm - ISI - has helped train and arm. These nut cases are their assets for all the covert attacks on India to keep it tied down in Kashmir and elsewhere.
Besides they know that India will never attack and even if they did the International community will be pissing in their pants (including US) about the prospects of Nuclear armageddon and come to Pakis' rescue with a ceasefire call. Zardari and his Civilian Govt. Institutions will take the blame in Pakistan for succumbing to international pressure and stopping the brave Paki army from decimating kafir/powerless Indians. Army will announce a coup promising more security against India and overthrow Zardari/Gilani or whoever and entrench themselves again back in power for another decade.
What will America do?
US and rest of the world while shaking with fear about the nuclear war that was averted will start focusing foolishly (or maybe for their own clandestine gain) on Kashmir as the core issue and pressure India to give it freedom! What more does Paki army need? India-Pak hypenation is back so that Pakis feel important in International circles again. Tensions alive on their Eastern border to keep the army as center of focus and power internally in Pakistan. Covert terrorism in Kashmir will again resume with all the international attention on it, and Indian army and diplomacy is tied down there, and all the Taliban and other Islamic nut cases that they trained and armed have a cause to give up their worthless lives and not be fighting the Paki army for achieving their goal of going to heaven for quality time with some virgins.
Besides Americans dont care if Kashmir is blowing up - infact they would love to see an independant state their to get a leg firmly in South Asia.
So what should India do?
Not go to war overtly now. Start covert operations inside Pakistan on war footing and start funding and support for Balochi, Sindi, Mohajir, Pushtun, Baltistan freedom movements inside Pakistan. If there is any other terrorist attack in India, activate these people inside Pakistan to blow up their prime targets - Muridke headquarters of Jaamat-ud-Dawa for instance. Assinations of ISI officers, encourage suicide attacks on their army camps, cantonments. In other words make them feel the cost of any further attacks inside India, but covertly. And also take the covert proxy war to their soil.
For now, India should not attack Pakistan and give their army an excuse to squirm away from fighting their own created Franenstein monster - Islamic Jehadists on Western border. Indian army should sit back, relax and let the Paki army take their own creation on their Western front.
I hope the internal politics inside India dont come in the way of the above goal.
more...
dixie
05-24 11:59 AM
Folks,
I think if you one wants to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of H1B's or immigrant visas, then you can go ahead and label that person "anti-immigrant". I would be with you, saying that is definitely negative to America.
So far I haven't seen Lou Dobbs doing that though. All the time I watch the program I see that man bringing up legitimate concerns. Lou Dobbs is a hero for Americans. The fact is that in general, wages have been stagnated for the last five years. What I have seen Lou Dobbs bringing up is that H1B numbers should not be increased. Don't you think that is a fair and rational approach ? Tell me. Honestly, when I learned this provision that they want to increase H1B visas at 20% every year, that appeared quite of a stretch to me. Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?
if you think he is only against INCREASING H1-B visas, but is happy with you and I continuing here on that visa and go on to get GCs, then you are fooling yourself. He is the one primarily responsible for spreading the myth that H1-B workers pay no taxes.To this day, my co-workers openly envy me , because I supposedly dont pay any taxes !!!
If you go through the transcripts of his shows over the last 4-5 years, he is stauncly against everything foriegn, period. He hates H1-Bs, absolutely hates indian call centers , hates cheap chinese goods, hates illegal aliens ... he is not just anti-immigrant, he is xenophobic.
The reason he is so popular is because he appeals to populist sentiments .. its the easiest thing in the world to blame foreigners when the economy is bad and believe everything will be hunky-dory if they are kicked out.
And by the way, I dont see anything wrong in increasing H1-B visas .. after all most of us are here on that visa .. if there is a market demand for them, I see no rational in depriving american employees from hiring foreigners legally. By that logic, are we going to oppose increasing EB green cards once we get our own?? Thats plain hypocrisy.
Nobody riles me more than lou dobbs .. not tancredo, not sessions, not even FAIR. Because, unlike his worthy friends, he has access to idiot boxes all around america on a daily basis.
I think if you one wants to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of H1B's or immigrant visas, then you can go ahead and label that person "anti-immigrant". I would be with you, saying that is definitely negative to America.
So far I haven't seen Lou Dobbs doing that though. All the time I watch the program I see that man bringing up legitimate concerns. Lou Dobbs is a hero for Americans. The fact is that in general, wages have been stagnated for the last five years. What I have seen Lou Dobbs bringing up is that H1B numbers should not be increased. Don't you think that is a fair and rational approach ? Tell me. Honestly, when I learned this provision that they want to increase H1B visas at 20% every year, that appeared quite of a stretch to me. Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?
if you think he is only against INCREASING H1-B visas, but is happy with you and I continuing here on that visa and go on to get GCs, then you are fooling yourself. He is the one primarily responsible for spreading the myth that H1-B workers pay no taxes.To this day, my co-workers openly envy me , because I supposedly dont pay any taxes !!!
If you go through the transcripts of his shows over the last 4-5 years, he is stauncly against everything foriegn, period. He hates H1-Bs, absolutely hates indian call centers , hates cheap chinese goods, hates illegal aliens ... he is not just anti-immigrant, he is xenophobic.
The reason he is so popular is because he appeals to populist sentiments .. its the easiest thing in the world to blame foreigners when the economy is bad and believe everything will be hunky-dory if they are kicked out.
And by the way, I dont see anything wrong in increasing H1-B visas .. after all most of us are here on that visa .. if there is a market demand for them, I see no rational in depriving american employees from hiring foreigners legally. By that logic, are we going to oppose increasing EB green cards once we get our own?? Thats plain hypocrisy.
Nobody riles me more than lou dobbs .. not tancredo, not sessions, not even FAIR. Because, unlike his worthy friends, he has access to idiot boxes all around america on a daily basis.
2010 Gas Mask thread - Page 2
jkays94
05-24 02:31 PM
I don't have the time to go one by one, but one of the arguments about "Zogby poll taken by anti-immigration" groups is at minimum comic. How about other polls posted along the years which show the obvious and logic, which is the American people (not employers of course) support lower immigration numbers ? Anyone surprised by that ?
There are over 50 different instances referencing Lou Dobbs. He misleads and misdirects and he will flip flop when he is caught between a rock and a hard place on his wild claims. CNN by extension is fast establishing itself as an anti-immigrant media house for purposes of ratings, on which is it fast loosing ground. Their latest hire Glenn Beck (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605100005) only shows that promoting such an agenda seems to save CNN's ratings from plunging to the bottom :
MON., MAY 22, 2006 VIEWERS
FNC O'REILLY 2,105,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,666,000
FNC GRETA 1,494,000
FNC HUME 1,341,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,215,000
CNN KING 885,000
CNN DOBBS 702,000
CNN BLITZER 592,000
CNN COOPER 590,000
CNN ZAHN 527,000
CNNHN GRACE 487,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 471,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 406,000
There are over 50 different instances referencing Lou Dobbs. He misleads and misdirects and he will flip flop when he is caught between a rock and a hard place on his wild claims. CNN by extension is fast establishing itself as an anti-immigrant media house for purposes of ratings, on which is it fast loosing ground. Their latest hire Glenn Beck (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605100005) only shows that promoting such an agenda seems to save CNN's ratings from plunging to the bottom :
MON., MAY 22, 2006 VIEWERS
FNC O'REILLY 2,105,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,666,000
FNC GRETA 1,494,000
FNC HUME 1,341,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,215,000
CNN KING 885,000
CNN DOBBS 702,000
CNN BLITZER 592,000
CNN COOPER 590,000
CNN ZAHN 527,000
CNNHN GRACE 487,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 471,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 406,000
more...
abracadabra102
01-04 12:02 PM
oh thats the price YOU are willing to bear? How? By staying comfy in the US? Its easy to say dude when you are 7000 miles away. If you (and i know you are not) or anyone in your family is in the military, you would not dare to make such a stupid statement.
This whole thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. It has no place in immigration forums.
First of all, try to keep the discussion civil. You can disagree with me. If you have something logical to say, say so. No need to make some wild assumptions about me and my family and call me stupid.
If you don't like the thread, move on.
If you apply the logic that one has to be a soldier to talk about war, none of us can talk about anything we do not do. (Do you have to be a politician to talk about politics and politicians?)
War is a community effort and is supported by all citizens in different capacities. The guy making the gun is just as important as the guy carrying it. Sure, the later is most visible and faces most danger to his/her life, but that is the choice that person made.
This whole thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. It has no place in immigration forums.
First of all, try to keep the discussion civil. You can disagree with me. If you have something logical to say, say so. No need to make some wild assumptions about me and my family and call me stupid.
If you don't like the thread, move on.
If you apply the logic that one has to be a soldier to talk about war, none of us can talk about anything we do not do. (Do you have to be a politician to talk about politics and politicians?)
War is a community effort and is supported by all citizens in different capacities. The guy making the gun is just as important as the guy carrying it. Sure, the later is most visible and faces most danger to his/her life, but that is the choice that person made.
hair Soldier with Gas Mask 0062
conchshell
08-06 10:35 AM
If there is a contest for the best entry, this one gets my vote. But, there is a subtlety that seems to be missed here. Monkeys are mostly brain, whereas lions are all brawn (we are a lot closer to monkeys in our genetic makeup!). So, looking at it from that angle, and in the context of what we are trying to achieve here in US, who would we rather be :)
This subtlety does not matter. From USCIS point of view, if you entered on Lion Visa you are a Lion, if you came in on Monkey visa you are a monkey. These visas are not based on your genetic makeup, but on the fact that under what category your zoo (employer) filed your visa. Otherwise how come monkeys interfiled and became Lion?? :D:D
This subtlety does not matter. From USCIS point of view, if you entered on Lion Visa you are a Lion, if you came in on Monkey visa you are a monkey. These visas are not based on your genetic makeup, but on the fact that under what category your zoo (employer) filed your visa. Otherwise how come monkeys interfiled and became Lion?? :D:D
more...
msp1976
03-04 01:01 PM
I wish that you would drop whatever you have in your signature....George Allen was one of the co-sponsors of the original SKIL bill...He was sympathetic to our cause...Now when he made those comments he was pandering to certain local sentiments....Conservative senators have been more sympathetic to us than democrats...It is time to stop beating that dead horse...
hot an early French gas mask.
SunnySurya
08-05 10:45 AM
And may I please ask how do you know that?
May be 1% of EB2. Good to know that.
May be 1% of EB2. Good to know that.
more...
house SS - soldier - gas mask by
alisa
01-06 11:58 PM
For all who think "Fatah" is more moderate than Hamas, heres a part of the constitution of Fatah:
Goals
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (13) Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination.
"Eradication" of the Jewish state., their culture and there economy. Heres a movement which has "Genocide" as its constituional goal. How the hell do you negotiate with such people? Israel needs to be supported in its noble actions of self defense againt such fanatics.
Good point.
There should just be a greater and proper Israel, with Gaza and West Bank as parts of Israel. And all people living there should be citizens of Israel.
Problem solved. No need to destroy anything or anyone.
Goals
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (13) Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination.
"Eradication" of the Jewish state., their culture and there economy. Heres a movement which has "Genocide" as its constituional goal. How the hell do you negotiate with such people? Israel needs to be supported in its noble actions of self defense againt such fanatics.
Good point.
There should just be a greater and proper Israel, with Gaza and West Bank as parts of Israel. And all people living there should be citizens of Israel.
Problem solved. No need to destroy anything or anyone.
tattoo Iraq War: Gas Mask Poster by
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:29 AM
The said person should have been aware of what he or she was getting into. Blaming your hardship on other people and trying to get mileage out of it is hardly an honest way............would you agree?
I am EB2 and I do not support this idea. Just imagine, someone could have applied in EB3 though he was qualified for EB2 because he was ill advised by his lawyers or employers. Why should he be punished for no fault of his?.
I am EB2 and I do not support this idea. Just imagine, someone could have applied in EB3 though he was qualified for EB2 because he was ill advised by his lawyers or employers. Why should he be punished for no fault of his?.
more...
pictures 3d Soldier In A Gas Mask
EndlessWait
07-14 09:24 PM
for those who were eligible to file in EB2, its even more painful...
There are just too many cases in the Eb3 pipeline, unless USCIS/govt. does something about it..
There are just too many cases in the Eb3 pipeline, unless USCIS/govt. does something about it..
dresses Black Soldier Gas Mask Women#39;s
cinqsit
03-24 05:59 PM
Thanks UnitedNations for this discussion.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
more...
makeup 3d soldiers in a gas mask with
unitednations
03-26 08:49 PM
Thank you UN for wonderful explanation. You hit the nail to the point. Usually USCIS sends these work location queries at the time of 140 processing. I am surprised we are seeing these at I-485 stage. Is there any recent memo related to this by USCIS that you know of?
If you go really far back; california service center when they were adjudicating 140's would the odd time deny a 140 because they didn't believe the intent of joining the company if a person was working in different location (when baltimore case came out; it helped in overturning these types of denials and they stopped doing it).
Now; nebraska service center the odd time did question the intent at the 140 level and also at the 485 level. I haven't seen it much in last three years. However; the ones I did see (they were all approved; thanks to baltimore decision) were for companies which had filed labors in iowa. I believe that this was also one of the catalysts in looking at iowa companies of what is happening today.
If you go really far back; california service center when they were adjudicating 140's would the odd time deny a 140 because they didn't believe the intent of joining the company if a person was working in different location (when baltimore case came out; it helped in overturning these types of denials and they stopped doing it).
Now; nebraska service center the odd time did question the intent at the 140 level and also at the 485 level. I haven't seen it much in last three years. However; the ones I did see (they were all approved; thanks to baltimore decision) were for companies which had filed labors in iowa. I believe that this was also one of the catalysts in looking at iowa companies of what is happening today.
girlfriend Apocalypse Gas Mask Soldier
Macaca
05-09 05:51 PM
After bin Laden, U.S. Will Look East (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/05/06/after_bin_laden_us_will_look_east_99510.html) By Daniel Kilman | German Marshall Fund
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
hairstyles GERMAN SOLDIER IN GAS MASK .
Macaca
12-28 07:23 PM
In India, a struggle for moderation as a young Muslim woman quietly battles extremism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/27/AR2010122704519.html) By Emily Wax | Washington Post
Rubina Sandhi had settled in for a night of homework when panic swept through the narrow, congested alleys of her neighborhood.
It was Sept. 11, 2001. Television sets in the mosques, tea shops and market were beaming images of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames in New York. Five months later, Rubina's house was burning as Hindu mobs torched Muslim areas of her city, leaving thousands of people homeless. She remembers smoke hovering over Ahmedabad just as it had over New York.
With their few remaining possessions, Rubina's family members took refuge in a squalid relief camp and, several weeks later, moved into ramshackle housing on the edge of the city - where only Muslims lived and worked. "We felt like ghosts," recalled Rubina, who was then 12.
The rioting was among India's worst sectarian violence in decades, hardening divisions between the Hindu majority and the country's 140 million Muslims as hard-liners on both sides sought to exploit the tensions. Soon after the rioting, many young Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood started following stricter forms of Islam as imams fanned out into the region's poorest Muslim areas, some bringing with them Wahhabism, the fundamentalist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
Some Indian Muslims even sought training in Pakistan to carry out acts of revenge in India, their version of violent jihad. For her part, Rubina chose a different struggle, determined to be a good Muslim and daughter as the community around her became more radicalized. She fought for the right to make decisions for herself, and she tried to find a way to voice her beliefs as a woman, as others around her were being silenced.
Her decisions would mirror those of many other young Muslim women in her city who entered adulthood in the aftermath of religious violence and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She would be asked to compromise her dreams, and her commitment to Islam would be questioned.
Ahmedabad, a 600-year-old city in the state of Gujarat, has long been a vibrant historical center where religions aspired to coexist. It was the headquarters for Mahatma Gandhi's ashram and his peaceful freedom struggle and is celebrated for its Indo-Islamic architecture. Of the city's 5 million people, 11 percent are Muslim.
Before the riots, many Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood celebrated Hindu traditions. Yet tensions between Hindus and Muslims here often rose to the surface.
The violence in 2002 erupted after 59 Hindus were burned to death on a train as they were returning home from a pilgrimage site. Muslim extremists were blamed for the blaze, but the cause of the fire remains in dispute. In 2004, a government-appointed panel ruled that the train fire was an accident and not caused by Muslims.
Soon after the anti-Muslim riots, extremist imams started to gain more clout. Among them was a firebrand televangelist named Zakir Naik, whose weekly sermons are broadcast from Mumbai and Saudi Arabia. Thousands of young Muslims have been drawn to his powerful slogans, including his declaration that to defend Islam, "every Muslim should be a terrorist."
This more conservative brand of Islam became more acceptable, and it seemed to empower Muslim men in India. But it had the opposite effect on Muslim women. The imams and mullahs warned young women to stay indoors, to forgo higher education and to become dutiful mothers of as many children as God would give them. The children, they said, would replace the Muslims killed during the riots.
"The Hindu mobs who attacked us called us all terrorists. Then the mullahs wanted to take away our freedoms," Rubina said, adding: "Everyone felt confused."
A pervasive fear
Rubina's father, Mohammed Sandhi, had an eighth-grade education and a job selling incense sticks to Hindu temples. When he was a young boy, his grandparents had told him haunting stories about Muslim-Hindu tensions in the 1930s and rioting in the southern city of Hyderabad that forced the family to migrate to Ahmedabad.
Mohammed believed in the aspirations of a rising India. He had saved for years to move the family into a comfortable two-room home, and he hoped that his two children - Rubina and her older brother, Irfan - would be the first in their family to attend college.
But after the riots, Mohammed began to believe that his ambitions were naive, at least for Indian Muslims. "We thought that was the past, over, just our history. But after the 2002 riots, we worry every day that the violence could happen again," he said.
In the street just outside the family's housing complex, 69 people, mostly Muslims, were burned alive during the riots, the first and largest single massacre during the crisis, a federal investigation later found.
From there, fighting spread. Over the next two months, more than 200 mosques and hundreds of Muslim shrines were burned down, and 17 ancient Hindu temples were attacked, according to police and human rights workers.
Everything in Rubina's home was destroyed: childhood photographs, birth certificates, school records and land deeds.
The family left behind the charred ruins of their home for a relief camp, one of more than 100 that housed 150,000 Muslims after the riots.
The city slowly calmed, but acts of violence on both sides continued and people remained fearful.
Watching their parents weep, Rubina and Irfan grew angrier and more confused. "We never thought this could happen here," said Rubina's mother, Mumtaz Sandhi. "We thought we are Muslims. But we are also Indians."
Silencing women's voices
After several weeks in the camps, Rubina's family settled in Juhapura, a poor area on the western outskirts of the city where many Muslims moved from Hindu-dominated localities.
The neighborhood has some middle-class areas but is largely poor, and activists have fought for basic government services, including paved roads, a sewage treatment system and garbage collection.
During her teenage years, Rubina started to notice that her brother, like many young Muslim men, was growing more observant of Islam, more conservative, introverted. They had always been close, and tragedy had strengthened their bond. But their paths began to diverge as Irfan sought comfort and sanctuary in the strictures of Islam.
Rubina, like other young Muslim women, feared she would lose her freedom under those strictures. She resisted calls from increasingly conservative imams to wear a traditional black garment that covers the body and sometimes the face.
In Gujarat, more and more women suddenly started dressing more conservatively, often as a show of Muslim pride but also to ward off sexual advances and potential sexual violence.
Rubina's mother began covering her hair, and Rubina said Irfan soon told her that he preferred to marry a woman who dressed conservatively.
Around this time, Rubina met a social worker named Jamila Khan at a meeting for Muslim women concerned about the living conditions in Juhapura and profiling of Muslim men as terrorists. But Khan also spoke out against Muslim leaders intent on reeling in Muslim women, curbing the liberties enshrined in India's secular constitution. She described herself as an "Islamic feminist."
"It doesn't matter what our women were wearing," Khan told Rubina and her friends. "What is important is still having a voice. Islamic rigidity is silencing our most dynamic Muslim female minds."
Many of Rubina's peers were giving up on having a career and were marrying and starting families earlier. Instead of going to college to study business or medicine, many were taking up courses at nearby mosques that taught them to be good Muslim wives.
But as Rubina entered young adulthood, she said, she became aware of the hypocrisy among many of the imams. Although they preached that Muslim women should be homemakers, they sent their daughters to private schools and universities in Britain, Canada and the United States.
During her first and only year at college, a Hindu extremist group circulating on campus began warning Hindus against having friendships or romantic relationships with Muslims. Rubina said some Hindu students started calling the places where Muslim students gathered "the Gaza Strip" or "Pakistan."
"But I am Indian, too," Rubina said she wanted to tell them. She felt ashamed. Betrayed. Silenced.
Rubina Sandhi had settled in for a night of homework when panic swept through the narrow, congested alleys of her neighborhood.
It was Sept. 11, 2001. Television sets in the mosques, tea shops and market were beaming images of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames in New York. Five months later, Rubina's house was burning as Hindu mobs torched Muslim areas of her city, leaving thousands of people homeless. She remembers smoke hovering over Ahmedabad just as it had over New York.
With their few remaining possessions, Rubina's family members took refuge in a squalid relief camp and, several weeks later, moved into ramshackle housing on the edge of the city - where only Muslims lived and worked. "We felt like ghosts," recalled Rubina, who was then 12.
The rioting was among India's worst sectarian violence in decades, hardening divisions between the Hindu majority and the country's 140 million Muslims as hard-liners on both sides sought to exploit the tensions. Soon after the rioting, many young Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood started following stricter forms of Islam as imams fanned out into the region's poorest Muslim areas, some bringing with them Wahhabism, the fundamentalist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
Some Indian Muslims even sought training in Pakistan to carry out acts of revenge in India, their version of violent jihad. For her part, Rubina chose a different struggle, determined to be a good Muslim and daughter as the community around her became more radicalized. She fought for the right to make decisions for herself, and she tried to find a way to voice her beliefs as a woman, as others around her were being silenced.
Her decisions would mirror those of many other young Muslim women in her city who entered adulthood in the aftermath of religious violence and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She would be asked to compromise her dreams, and her commitment to Islam would be questioned.
Ahmedabad, a 600-year-old city in the state of Gujarat, has long been a vibrant historical center where religions aspired to coexist. It was the headquarters for Mahatma Gandhi's ashram and his peaceful freedom struggle and is celebrated for its Indo-Islamic architecture. Of the city's 5 million people, 11 percent are Muslim.
Before the riots, many Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood celebrated Hindu traditions. Yet tensions between Hindus and Muslims here often rose to the surface.
The violence in 2002 erupted after 59 Hindus were burned to death on a train as they were returning home from a pilgrimage site. Muslim extremists were blamed for the blaze, but the cause of the fire remains in dispute. In 2004, a government-appointed panel ruled that the train fire was an accident and not caused by Muslims.
Soon after the anti-Muslim riots, extremist imams started to gain more clout. Among them was a firebrand televangelist named Zakir Naik, whose weekly sermons are broadcast from Mumbai and Saudi Arabia. Thousands of young Muslims have been drawn to his powerful slogans, including his declaration that to defend Islam, "every Muslim should be a terrorist."
This more conservative brand of Islam became more acceptable, and it seemed to empower Muslim men in India. But it had the opposite effect on Muslim women. The imams and mullahs warned young women to stay indoors, to forgo higher education and to become dutiful mothers of as many children as God would give them. The children, they said, would replace the Muslims killed during the riots.
"The Hindu mobs who attacked us called us all terrorists. Then the mullahs wanted to take away our freedoms," Rubina said, adding: "Everyone felt confused."
A pervasive fear
Rubina's father, Mohammed Sandhi, had an eighth-grade education and a job selling incense sticks to Hindu temples. When he was a young boy, his grandparents had told him haunting stories about Muslim-Hindu tensions in the 1930s and rioting in the southern city of Hyderabad that forced the family to migrate to Ahmedabad.
Mohammed believed in the aspirations of a rising India. He had saved for years to move the family into a comfortable two-room home, and he hoped that his two children - Rubina and her older brother, Irfan - would be the first in their family to attend college.
But after the riots, Mohammed began to believe that his ambitions were naive, at least for Indian Muslims. "We thought that was the past, over, just our history. But after the 2002 riots, we worry every day that the violence could happen again," he said.
In the street just outside the family's housing complex, 69 people, mostly Muslims, were burned alive during the riots, the first and largest single massacre during the crisis, a federal investigation later found.
From there, fighting spread. Over the next two months, more than 200 mosques and hundreds of Muslim shrines were burned down, and 17 ancient Hindu temples were attacked, according to police and human rights workers.
Everything in Rubina's home was destroyed: childhood photographs, birth certificates, school records and land deeds.
The family left behind the charred ruins of their home for a relief camp, one of more than 100 that housed 150,000 Muslims after the riots.
The city slowly calmed, but acts of violence on both sides continued and people remained fearful.
Watching their parents weep, Rubina and Irfan grew angrier and more confused. "We never thought this could happen here," said Rubina's mother, Mumtaz Sandhi. "We thought we are Muslims. But we are also Indians."
Silencing women's voices
After several weeks in the camps, Rubina's family settled in Juhapura, a poor area on the western outskirts of the city where many Muslims moved from Hindu-dominated localities.
The neighborhood has some middle-class areas but is largely poor, and activists have fought for basic government services, including paved roads, a sewage treatment system and garbage collection.
During her teenage years, Rubina started to notice that her brother, like many young Muslim men, was growing more observant of Islam, more conservative, introverted. They had always been close, and tragedy had strengthened their bond. But their paths began to diverge as Irfan sought comfort and sanctuary in the strictures of Islam.
Rubina, like other young Muslim women, feared she would lose her freedom under those strictures. She resisted calls from increasingly conservative imams to wear a traditional black garment that covers the body and sometimes the face.
In Gujarat, more and more women suddenly started dressing more conservatively, often as a show of Muslim pride but also to ward off sexual advances and potential sexual violence.
Rubina's mother began covering her hair, and Rubina said Irfan soon told her that he preferred to marry a woman who dressed conservatively.
Around this time, Rubina met a social worker named Jamila Khan at a meeting for Muslim women concerned about the living conditions in Juhapura and profiling of Muslim men as terrorists. But Khan also spoke out against Muslim leaders intent on reeling in Muslim women, curbing the liberties enshrined in India's secular constitution. She described herself as an "Islamic feminist."
"It doesn't matter what our women were wearing," Khan told Rubina and her friends. "What is important is still having a voice. Islamic rigidity is silencing our most dynamic Muslim female minds."
Many of Rubina's peers were giving up on having a career and were marrying and starting families earlier. Instead of going to college to study business or medicine, many were taking up courses at nearby mosques that taught them to be good Muslim wives.
But as Rubina entered young adulthood, she said, she became aware of the hypocrisy among many of the imams. Although they preached that Muslim women should be homemakers, they sent their daughters to private schools and universities in Britain, Canada and the United States.
During her first and only year at college, a Hindu extremist group circulating on campus began warning Hindus against having friendships or romantic relationships with Muslims. Rubina said some Hindu students started calling the places where Muslim students gathered "the Gaza Strip" or "Pakistan."
"But I am Indian, too," Rubina said she wanted to tell them. She felt ashamed. Betrayed. Silenced.
dixie
02-02 01:17 PM
You seriously think Lou does not know that ? I would expect a former anchor of CNN Money to know the basics of US tax laws. Alas, he also knows the average americans who view his show are too lazy to do any research by themselves - all this is a deliberate misinformation campaign to make the middle class angry and believe immigrants are responsible for their perceived decline in standard of living. In the process his ratings are going through the roof, and of course CNN doesn't have a problem with that. What to expect from such a person ? We are lucky he is yet to blame immigrants for the mess in Iraq (he has even blamed them for the mess after hurricane katrina !!!!!).
this info is for lou dobbs and he can search for this information in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (for all the middle-class that can get free information, most likey coded by an H1B)
[edit] Taxation status of H-1B workers
H-1B workers are legally required to pay the same taxes as any other US resident, including Social Security and Medicare.[2] Any person who spends more than 183 days in the US in a calendar year is a tax resident and is required to pay US taxes on their worldwide income. From the IRS perspective, it doesn't matter if that income is paid in the US or elsewhere. If an H-1B worker is given a living allowance, it is treated the same by the IRS as any other US resident. In some cases, H-1B workers pay higher taxes than a US citizen because they are not entitled to certain deductions (eg. head of household deduction amongst many others). Some H-1B workers are not eligible to receive any Social Security or Medicare benefits unless they are able to adjust status to that of permanent resident.[3] However, if their country of citizenship has a tax agreement with the United States, they are able to collect the Social Security they've earned even if they don't gain permanent residency there. Such agreements are negotiated between the United States and other countries, typically those which have comparable standards of living and public retirement systems
this info is for lou dobbs and he can search for this information in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (for all the middle-class that can get free information, most likey coded by an H1B)
[edit] Taxation status of H-1B workers
H-1B workers are legally required to pay the same taxes as any other US resident, including Social Security and Medicare.[2] Any person who spends more than 183 days in the US in a calendar year is a tax resident and is required to pay US taxes on their worldwide income. From the IRS perspective, it doesn't matter if that income is paid in the US or elsewhere. If an H-1B worker is given a living allowance, it is treated the same by the IRS as any other US resident. In some cases, H-1B workers pay higher taxes than a US citizen because they are not entitled to certain deductions (eg. head of household deduction amongst many others). Some H-1B workers are not eligible to receive any Social Security or Medicare benefits unless they are able to adjust status to that of permanent resident.[3] However, if their country of citizenship has a tax agreement with the United States, they are able to collect the Social Security they've earned even if they don't gain permanent residency there. Such agreements are negotiated between the United States and other countries, typically those which have comparable standards of living and public retirement systems
r2i2009
05-04 01:10 PM
House...forget it......
It will never reach those highs again...
In US..RE is done.
Not 485...look at the number of foreclosures.....and inflation.....
untill the war is over...forget...
It will never reach those highs again...
In US..RE is done.
Not 485...look at the number of foreclosures.....and inflation.....
untill the war is over...forget...
No comments:
Post a Comment