StuckInTheMuck
08-06 03:24 PM
haha haha..man, cant let this thread disappear!
bump bump!
\/\/ dump dump \/\/
bump bump!
\/\/ dump dump \/\/
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
kevinkris
02-18 04:22 PM
Hi Macaca,
Thanks for all info about lobbying. The concept is good for changing laws based on public opinions but i think it's misused to pass the laws from businesses who have money. Like these big oil and automobile companies.. huh..
Thanks,
Kris
Thanks for all info about lobbying. The concept is good for changing laws based on public opinions but i think it's misused to pass the laws from businesses who have money. Like these big oil and automobile companies.. huh..
Thanks,
Kris
Macaca
12-16 09:22 PM
Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
Macaca
12-28 06:29 PM
China's Sudan Predicament (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/chinas-sudan-predicament_b_801655.html) By Joe Lauria | Huffington Post
The age of ideology in China may soon be ending. Caught between its longstanding opposition to independence movements worldwide and its expanding economic interests, Beijing finds itself remarkably choosing to court a separatist government in south Sudan.
The south is scheduled to vote on January 9 on independence from Khartoum after 43 years of civil war that left more than 2 million people dead. The referendum is still uncertain amid fears of a new war. But if the vote goes ahead, the south is overwhelmingly expected to break the continent's biggest nation in two.
China has long had substantial investments in all of Sudan, the most of any foreign country. It has a 40% stake in the oil industry and 60% of Sudan's oil is exported to China. To protect those interests Beijing has supported Khartoum in the U.N. Security Council over separatist movements in Darfur and, until recently, in the south.
That was consistent with China's opposition at the U.N. to separatist movements elsewhere in the world, such as in Kosovo and East Timor. The aim has been to give no encouragement to Taiwan and its own restive minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang. Those independence movements are watching what China does abroad. Taiwan, notably, was among the first countries to recognize Kosovo.
Until early this year, China steadfastly opposed southern independence in Sudan too. But China saw the writing on the wall in Juba and was faced with a choice: either risk emboldening its domestic independence movements or its oil investments in the south, where 80% of the country's petroleum is found.
"Khartoum had insisted that they alone were the interlocutor on oil for a long time and the Chinese respected that," said Fabienne Hara, an Africa specialist at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group. Khartoum awarded China's four oil concessions. But by 2007 the south Sudanese realized they needed China if they were to become independent and the Chinese realized they might soon need an independent south Sudan too, if the oil went with it. "It is pragmatism. I don't think anyone believes that the referendum process can be stopped," Hara said.
China opened a consulate in Juba, the south's capital, a normally unusual move for Beijing in a place that wants to break away. Chinese Communist Party officials routinely visit the south. Southern leader Salva Kiir has twice visited China.
But Beijing must walk a fine line between courting the south and not alienating the north. It still has major business there, including arms sales and infrastructure projects. Li Baodong, China's U.N. ambassador, told me that Beijing is clearly trying to stay on good terms with both sides.
"We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of this country, any argument amongst themselves, that's their internal affairs and we are not getting into it," Li said. "Whatever the choice the people make, we will respect that."
Oil revenue is currently shared 50-50 between north and south under the 2005 peace deal that set up the referendum. It is pumped from the south through the north in a 1,000-mile Chinese-financed pipeline to a Chinese-built refinery in Port Sudan on the Red Sea, where it is shipped.
How to share this oil in an independent south Sudan is still one of the trickiest questions the two sides, under the mediation of Thabo Mbeki, are trying to work out. Other issues under discussion are the border, sharing water and what to do with Abeyi. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir warned of war if these issues aren't worked out by Jan. 9.
The south would likely enrage Khartoum if it were to find a way to get the oil out bypassing the north altogether. With Chinese help, this may one day happen.
Kenyan officials have been studying a pipeline and refinery project from south Sudan to the port of Lamu on the Indian Ocean coast. The Kenyan Transport Ministry has sought bids for the project. According to China Daily, Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki and Chinese President Hu Jintao discussed China's commitment to build the $16 billion project last May in Shanghai. China is conducting a feasibility study, according to Kenyan media.
I asked Ali Karti, the Sudanese foreign minister, about how his government would react to such a project. "We have our own oil," he said, adding, "That project will never be built."
Adopting a Western business mentality, in which profit and economic growth are often the only tenets, has launched China into a head-on collision with some of its traditional policies, said Dru Gladney, an expert on Chinese minorities at Pomona College in California.
China has always portrayed itself as a leader of developing countries, but its own rapid development has changed its relationship with the developing world, he said. "Encouraging a so-called separatist movement is one that is going to complicate that position very much," he said.
"It is a delicate issue for China. It is a very important development that China is seriously considering going against its 50-year long policy of non-intervention," Gladney told me.
China has apparently calculated that it can suppress its own separatists while courting separatists in Sudan, he said. "Chinese separatists are going to recognize that China first and foremost is very pragmatic, that its development and national self-interest is clearly taking precedence over ideology in China today."
"They may take some encouragement from it, but I don't think they really will take it that China is changing its position on separatism, especially within China," Gladney said.
He expects Beijing to crack down on separatists at home while making deals with them abroad. "It's whichever cat catches mice and in this case the cat that supports a separatist, Christian group will catch more mice for China," Gladney said.
The age of ideology in China may soon be ending. Caught between its longstanding opposition to independence movements worldwide and its expanding economic interests, Beijing finds itself remarkably choosing to court a separatist government in south Sudan.
The south is scheduled to vote on January 9 on independence from Khartoum after 43 years of civil war that left more than 2 million people dead. The referendum is still uncertain amid fears of a new war. But if the vote goes ahead, the south is overwhelmingly expected to break the continent's biggest nation in two.
China has long had substantial investments in all of Sudan, the most of any foreign country. It has a 40% stake in the oil industry and 60% of Sudan's oil is exported to China. To protect those interests Beijing has supported Khartoum in the U.N. Security Council over separatist movements in Darfur and, until recently, in the south.
That was consistent with China's opposition at the U.N. to separatist movements elsewhere in the world, such as in Kosovo and East Timor. The aim has been to give no encouragement to Taiwan and its own restive minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang. Those independence movements are watching what China does abroad. Taiwan, notably, was among the first countries to recognize Kosovo.
Until early this year, China steadfastly opposed southern independence in Sudan too. But China saw the writing on the wall in Juba and was faced with a choice: either risk emboldening its domestic independence movements or its oil investments in the south, where 80% of the country's petroleum is found.
"Khartoum had insisted that they alone were the interlocutor on oil for a long time and the Chinese respected that," said Fabienne Hara, an Africa specialist at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group. Khartoum awarded China's four oil concessions. But by 2007 the south Sudanese realized they needed China if they were to become independent and the Chinese realized they might soon need an independent south Sudan too, if the oil went with it. "It is pragmatism. I don't think anyone believes that the referendum process can be stopped," Hara said.
China opened a consulate in Juba, the south's capital, a normally unusual move for Beijing in a place that wants to break away. Chinese Communist Party officials routinely visit the south. Southern leader Salva Kiir has twice visited China.
But Beijing must walk a fine line between courting the south and not alienating the north. It still has major business there, including arms sales and infrastructure projects. Li Baodong, China's U.N. ambassador, told me that Beijing is clearly trying to stay on good terms with both sides.
"We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of this country, any argument amongst themselves, that's their internal affairs and we are not getting into it," Li said. "Whatever the choice the people make, we will respect that."
Oil revenue is currently shared 50-50 between north and south under the 2005 peace deal that set up the referendum. It is pumped from the south through the north in a 1,000-mile Chinese-financed pipeline to a Chinese-built refinery in Port Sudan on the Red Sea, where it is shipped.
How to share this oil in an independent south Sudan is still one of the trickiest questions the two sides, under the mediation of Thabo Mbeki, are trying to work out. Other issues under discussion are the border, sharing water and what to do with Abeyi. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir warned of war if these issues aren't worked out by Jan. 9.
The south would likely enrage Khartoum if it were to find a way to get the oil out bypassing the north altogether. With Chinese help, this may one day happen.
Kenyan officials have been studying a pipeline and refinery project from south Sudan to the port of Lamu on the Indian Ocean coast. The Kenyan Transport Ministry has sought bids for the project. According to China Daily, Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki and Chinese President Hu Jintao discussed China's commitment to build the $16 billion project last May in Shanghai. China is conducting a feasibility study, according to Kenyan media.
I asked Ali Karti, the Sudanese foreign minister, about how his government would react to such a project. "We have our own oil," he said, adding, "That project will never be built."
Adopting a Western business mentality, in which profit and economic growth are often the only tenets, has launched China into a head-on collision with some of its traditional policies, said Dru Gladney, an expert on Chinese minorities at Pomona College in California.
China has always portrayed itself as a leader of developing countries, but its own rapid development has changed its relationship with the developing world, he said. "Encouraging a so-called separatist movement is one that is going to complicate that position very much," he said.
"It is a delicate issue for China. It is a very important development that China is seriously considering going against its 50-year long policy of non-intervention," Gladney told me.
China has apparently calculated that it can suppress its own separatists while courting separatists in Sudan, he said. "Chinese separatists are going to recognize that China first and foremost is very pragmatic, that its development and national self-interest is clearly taking precedence over ideology in China today."
"They may take some encouragement from it, but I don't think they really will take it that China is changing its position on separatism, especially within China," Gladney said.
He expects Beijing to crack down on separatists at home while making deals with them abroad. "It's whichever cat catches mice and in this case the cat that supports a separatist, Christian group will catch more mice for China," Gladney said.
more...
satishku_2000
05-16 05:00 PM
A lot of people don't seem to grasp the fact that what they are doing IS ILLEGAL. Body shopping and everything that goes along with it is against the law in this country, and it is also violating the conditions of the H-1B application. It may be acceptable to you in your mind to do it but the bottom line is -- it's illegal. I am surprised you are crying about illegalities being stopped in this country. There is really not much to debate -- of course it is not an acceptable business model WHEN IT IS ILLEGAL. You can stock up for a business opening on a number of goods -- computers, printers, software etc. BUT NOT SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW. Glad to see congress agreeing with that.
Do you stand with Sen. Durbin on amnesty/legalization for illegal/undocumented people while creating problems for tax paying and law abiding consultants? This will be height of hypocrosy...
Do you stand with Sen. Durbin on amnesty/legalization for illegal/undocumented people while creating problems for tax paying and law abiding consultants? This will be height of hypocrosy...
subba
12-27 12:57 PM
Especially considering Sen. Cornyn seems to be opposed to some of the provisions being discussed for the illegal immigrants.
more...
nojoke
04-17 04:13 PM
http://dqnews.com/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay080417.aspx
It is down by 100K compared to last year. Just like I said, every year it is going to be 100K down for 2 more years.:D
It is down by 100K compared to last year. Just like I said, every year it is going to be 100K down for 2 more years.:D
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
thakurrajiv
04-06 08:53 AM
I have mentioned this point in some other post, I just got confirmation of that and wanted to share with everyone.
I went to one of my friends home yesterday. He has ARM which recently got reset. His rate was 4.3 and this year after reset he got to keep it !! Not only that his monthly installment reduced by $10 , he did not know why !!
So, what we are saying is deadlock here. People who dont have to move will very happy to keep their current loan which will be much cheaper than new loan. Buyers will face not only issue with credit but potentially higher rates. So there are 2 possible scenarios now :
1. Fed keep fed fund rate same or reduces
As we are seeing, current owners will like to keep their home if possible. Buyers dont see much bargain in current loan rates. So, anyone who has to sell will have to lose much more in price. Home market will be frozen,very bad for economy.The longer the fed keeps status quo, lower the price ...
2. Fed increases rate
Now ARMS will get reset every year. My friend was surprised when I told him his rate will get reset every year now tied to prime rate. Also, I told him that if not for Fed cuts his rate would have reset to around 7% !! So if Fed raises rate, current owners will suffer. Primes will be new sub-primes !!
In either case, the house prices are going down. The psychology of owning home is changing as equity is not getting build. If no equity, wouldn't I save for my son's college than spend twice the money just to get more space ( and 0 saving in turn).
Wait and watch, be ready for saner prices. 20% drop in home prices from here is very much possible .....
I went to one of my friends home yesterday. He has ARM which recently got reset. His rate was 4.3 and this year after reset he got to keep it !! Not only that his monthly installment reduced by $10 , he did not know why !!
So, what we are saying is deadlock here. People who dont have to move will very happy to keep their current loan which will be much cheaper than new loan. Buyers will face not only issue with credit but potentially higher rates. So there are 2 possible scenarios now :
1. Fed keep fed fund rate same or reduces
As we are seeing, current owners will like to keep their home if possible. Buyers dont see much bargain in current loan rates. So, anyone who has to sell will have to lose much more in price. Home market will be frozen,very bad for economy.The longer the fed keeps status quo, lower the price ...
2. Fed increases rate
Now ARMS will get reset every year. My friend was surprised when I told him his rate will get reset every year now tied to prime rate. Also, I told him that if not for Fed cuts his rate would have reset to around 7% !! So if Fed raises rate, current owners will suffer. Primes will be new sub-primes !!
In either case, the house prices are going down. The psychology of owning home is changing as equity is not getting build. If no equity, wouldn't I save for my son's college than spend twice the money just to get more space ( and 0 saving in turn).
Wait and watch, be ready for saner prices. 20% drop in home prices from here is very much possible .....
more...
DallasBlue
07-10 01:37 AM
simply amazing !! you owe a big one to yourself for getting through this though situation by knowing the laws and without wilting.
HATS OFF!!!!!
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
HATS OFF!!!!!
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
Tito_ortiz
01-03 10:23 PM
What is your experience with secret service and snipers? You seem to be so sure about that let's see your expertise on that.
Regarding, that was not a war against terrorist in the beginning. Now it is.
Pakistanis are good people too. Do not take an isolated attack in India conducted by terrorists as a generic approach please.
Wrong. First iraq war is not war against terrorist.
Second, pakistan already is doing Jihad against India. They don't need a reason to start a Jihad. Their obsession to destroy India is so much poisoned in their blood and they really don't need a reason for the Jihad.
Third- It is easy only in movies to use snipers to take down these men. Plus there are thousands and it is virtually impossible.
I agree that war is a tough choice and probably our politicians use the drum beat to get votes. And probably there won't be a war. But some of the rationalizations give here in this forum is funny.
Regarding, that was not a war against terrorist in the beginning. Now it is.
Pakistanis are good people too. Do not take an isolated attack in India conducted by terrorists as a generic approach please.
Wrong. First iraq war is not war against terrorist.
Second, pakistan already is doing Jihad against India. They don't need a reason to start a Jihad. Their obsession to destroy India is so much poisoned in their blood and they really don't need a reason for the Jihad.
Third- It is easy only in movies to use snipers to take down these men. Plus there are thousands and it is virtually impossible.
I agree that war is a tough choice and probably our politicians use the drum beat to get votes. And probably there won't be a war. But some of the rationalizations give here in this forum is funny.
more...
nk2006
06-01 04:49 PM
All these cable channels are after "ratings". Now that Bush administration has low popular support (based on surveys), these guys saw an opportunity to rouse people emotions and get some better ratings (different kind of vultures). Immigration is always a touchy subject at any time and at any place. Its easy to blame "aliens" for all the current problems. Many people can fall prey to this if they are not well informed. Its very unfortunate and sad that even major media houses are hosting these opportunistic journos. Sure immigration has to be discussed with different view points and should be analyzed to see how it impact's the country but these self-appointed crusaders give blatant misinformation. Even more sad is giving absurd figures/data and claim that its from "independent research".
Low Dobbs was never a known journalist until he started this rant. The most hilarous part of his show is that question of the day part. He "conveniently" frames the questions to get a desired answer (everyone know who watch and also vote those questions) and then even quotes the result as a support of what he is saying (its obvious he didnt take stats101). As someone else mentioned on another thread its best to just ignore what he says - he dont add any value to any serious discussion.
Its also MSNBC. Just look at Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.
If you hear Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, he sounds like the protege of Jeff Sessions.
However, one difference between Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs. Tucker supports(or atleast pretends to support) the legal variety.
Lou Dobbs openly opposes all immigration.
Low Dobbs was never a known journalist until he started this rant. The most hilarous part of his show is that question of the day part. He "conveniently" frames the questions to get a desired answer (everyone know who watch and also vote those questions) and then even quotes the result as a support of what he is saying (its obvious he didnt take stats101). As someone else mentioned on another thread its best to just ignore what he says - he dont add any value to any serious discussion.
Its also MSNBC. Just look at Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.
If you hear Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, he sounds like the protege of Jeff Sessions.
However, one difference between Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs. Tucker supports(or atleast pretends to support) the legal variety.
Lou Dobbs openly opposes all immigration.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
redcard
03-24 03:01 PM
[QUOTE=ganguteli;329173]Unitednations,
Ganguteli, it seems you are confusing two things at the same time.
What USCIS is now doing is going by the strict interpretation of the rule and when they start doing that lots of cases that fall in the gray area and were ignored in the past are now being looked into more closely. I read in one of the forums that an applicant�s 140 was rejected because in an H1 which he applied in early 2000 he had a different job description of an earlier job than the one he had on his 140 Petition. Who would have thought that USCIS would ever go back and pull out a resume from an application that was filled for H1-B in 2000 and compare the resume for 140 you are filling in 2009. In the last few years USCIS has spent a lot of money on technology. They I believe have scanned all the past applications, which can now be linked to all your immigration benefits you are filling for. It�s become a lot easier for an IO to pull out all the past information- like all your H1-B petitions, your 140 petitions today if they wish too when you apply say for an EAD renewal. The sad fact is that USCIS is a blackhole where they can sit on your application for years or decades while you suffer while you cannot do much. Yes you can go to a senator/Congressman or write letters, but if your application is pending with a smart IO who did not like your complaining to the Senator, he can make your life difficult by asking documents after documents before making a decision on your application, while the senator cannot interfere with the process. Welcome to the world of bureaucracy.
Ganguteli, it seems you are confusing two things at the same time.
What USCIS is now doing is going by the strict interpretation of the rule and when they start doing that lots of cases that fall in the gray area and were ignored in the past are now being looked into more closely. I read in one of the forums that an applicant�s 140 was rejected because in an H1 which he applied in early 2000 he had a different job description of an earlier job than the one he had on his 140 Petition. Who would have thought that USCIS would ever go back and pull out a resume from an application that was filled for H1-B in 2000 and compare the resume for 140 you are filling in 2009. In the last few years USCIS has spent a lot of money on technology. They I believe have scanned all the past applications, which can now be linked to all your immigration benefits you are filling for. It�s become a lot easier for an IO to pull out all the past information- like all your H1-B petitions, your 140 petitions today if they wish too when you apply say for an EAD renewal. The sad fact is that USCIS is a blackhole where they can sit on your application for years or decades while you suffer while you cannot do much. Yes you can go to a senator/Congressman or write letters, but if your application is pending with a smart IO who did not like your complaining to the Senator, he can make your life difficult by asking documents after documents before making a decision on your application, while the senator cannot interfere with the process. Welcome to the world of bureaucracy.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
my2cents
04-13 09:56 PM
i can not speak for everybody but
i bought in east coast in 2004 for $330K. it peaked to $425K in 2006 and now it is somewhere $350K. it may go even go down to $300K
I will break even if i stay for another 3 years. (total 7 years)
If renting then : 110K in rent with no benefits for 7 years.
Good Side:
- Tax benefits with dual income. ( proabably $300 per month)
- Bigger house
Bad Side:
Maintenance
IF i have to sell now then will be loss for me for sure so key is location and how long u stay.
i bought in east coast in 2004 for $330K. it peaked to $425K in 2006 and now it is somewhere $350K. it may go even go down to $300K
I will break even if i stay for another 3 years. (total 7 years)
If renting then : 110K in rent with no benefits for 7 years.
Good Side:
- Tax benefits with dual income. ( proabably $300 per month)
- Bigger house
Bad Side:
Maintenance
IF i have to sell now then will be loss for me for sure so key is location and how long u stay.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
nogc_noproblem
08-05 01:49 PM
A man was sitting alone in his office one night when a genie popped up out of his ashtray...
... and said, "And what will your third wish be?"
The man looked at the genie and said, "Huh? How can I be getting a third wish when I haven't had a first or second wish yet?"
"You have had two wishes already," the genie said, "but your second wish was for me to put everything back the way it was before you made your first wish. Thus, you remember nothing; because everything is the way it was before you made any wishes. You now have one wish left."
"Okay," said the man, "I don't believe this, but what the heck. I wish I were irresistible to women."
"Funny," said the genie as it granted his wish and disappeared forever. "That was your first wish, too!"
... and said, "And what will your third wish be?"
The man looked at the genie and said, "Huh? How can I be getting a third wish when I haven't had a first or second wish yet?"
"You have had two wishes already," the genie said, "but your second wish was for me to put everything back the way it was before you made your first wish. Thus, you remember nothing; because everything is the way it was before you made any wishes. You now have one wish left."
"Okay," said the man, "I don't believe this, but what the heck. I wish I were irresistible to women."
"Funny," said the genie as it granted his wish and disappeared forever. "That was your first wish, too!"
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
leoindiano
03-25 11:31 AM
Winner, You truly are with this comment....
On a lighter note, UN and Sledge, we charge you $ for post from now on in this thread...Running out of diskspace.....
On a lighter note, UN and Sledge, we charge you $ for post from now on in this thread...Running out of diskspace.....
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
08-08 05:48 PM
Actually; I didn't think it was courageous at all. I had to practice what I preach.
One of the reasons they ask for tax returns, w2's is they want to assess your intentions; if tax returns, etc. , is out of line with offered wage then it can make them think that it is not believable you will be doing that job once greencard gets approved.
Once 485 is filed; you are in a period of authorized stay. At that point; you can sit around and do nothing; switch jobs, etc.; However; to keep working you need to have authorization (ie., EAD card if you don't hold H-1b).
I didn't prepare my personal tax returns on purpose because uscis could have assessed my intentions differently. When I asked him why he wanted to see the tax returns for 2005 and 2006; even though I have unrestricted employment and I can do nothing if I please; he responded it was to assess intention. Since he saw I was self employed; if my tax returns were out of line with the offered job I was going to take upon greencard approval then they may not believe it.
Now; I didn't give him any financial data for 2005 and 2006. Although this is legal; if I was going to port to self employment then he could have assessed whether I was going to become a public charge or how I was living in 2005 and 2006. I had all my financial documents (ie., bank balances, brokerage account); just in case he went down this road.
he didn't but just in case he wanted to; I was ready for it.
bump
One of the reasons they ask for tax returns, w2's is they want to assess your intentions; if tax returns, etc. , is out of line with offered wage then it can make them think that it is not believable you will be doing that job once greencard gets approved.
Once 485 is filed; you are in a period of authorized stay. At that point; you can sit around and do nothing; switch jobs, etc.; However; to keep working you need to have authorization (ie., EAD card if you don't hold H-1b).
I didn't prepare my personal tax returns on purpose because uscis could have assessed my intentions differently. When I asked him why he wanted to see the tax returns for 2005 and 2006; even though I have unrestricted employment and I can do nothing if I please; he responded it was to assess intention. Since he saw I was self employed; if my tax returns were out of line with the offered job I was going to take upon greencard approval then they may not believe it.
Now; I didn't give him any financial data for 2005 and 2006. Although this is legal; if I was going to port to self employment then he could have assessed whether I was going to become a public charge or how I was living in 2005 and 2006. I had all my financial documents (ie., bank balances, brokerage account); just in case he went down this road.
he didn't but just in case he wanted to; I was ready for it.
bump
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
SunnySurya
12-22 03:16 PM
Well, my dear freind you obviously did not understand what I meant. I still maintain that Kashmir is the root of the problem and India has nothing to gain by keeping it. Caring for India and Caring for Kashmir are two different issues. The very reason , I want to cut off the cancerous finger is to prevent the spread of cancer to the other parts.
On the other hand if some one is attacking me in my home and/or hurting my family or freinds, I have full rights to defend and call for justice to prosecute the attacker, in this case declaring Pakistan a terrorist country.
SunnySurya,
Weren't you the one who said India should gift kashmir to pakistan to solve all terrorrist activities and war ?
How come you became a patriot and started caring about india all of a sudden ?
Do you have any consistent opinion ?
On the other hand if some one is attacking me in my home and/or hurting my family or freinds, I have full rights to defend and call for justice to prosecute the attacker, in this case declaring Pakistan a terrorist country.
SunnySurya,
Weren't you the one who said India should gift kashmir to pakistan to solve all terrorrist activities and war ?
How come you became a patriot and started caring about india all of a sudden ?
Do you have any consistent opinion ?
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
sledge_hammer
12-17 03:13 PM
I support the continuation of this thread! I support Marphad's views!
Legal
08-11 11:07 AM
I agree with yabadaba. We should also send feedback to CNN about the lies Lou Dobbs is perpetuating on national TV.
You can try...I am afraid CNN is not going to listen to you.
They know these things well. Lou Dobb's anti-immigrant frenzy/ fanaticism hasboosted the viewership..that's all matters to CNN.
You can try...I am afraid CNN is not going to listen to you.
They know these things well. Lou Dobb's anti-immigrant frenzy/ fanaticism hasboosted the viewership..that's all matters to CNN.
alisa
04-07 03:52 PM
Thats a very good question.
I think we should call Senators Durbin and Grassley and ask them why they want to hurt American businesses (that provide employment to millions of Americans) by stifling and increasing the cost of innovation, and losing American trained/American educated employees to India/China?
And so, why do they want to hurt American workers by encouraging outsourcing?
The deeper question is why are Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley pushing so hard for outsourcing, which will be the final outcome of this bill. If American companies can't hire local H1-Bs they will go somewhere else. I am going to call their office after the Easter break and ask for their response.
I think we should call Senators Durbin and Grassley and ask them why they want to hurt American businesses (that provide employment to millions of Americans) by stifling and increasing the cost of innovation, and losing American trained/American educated employees to India/China?
And so, why do they want to hurt American workers by encouraging outsourcing?
The deeper question is why are Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley pushing so hard for outsourcing, which will be the final outcome of this bill. If American companies can't hire local H1-Bs they will go somewhere else. I am going to call their office after the Easter break and ask for their response.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий