humdesi
02-21 10:06 PM
Lord almighty people are getting really carried away. :) This cutoff setting guy hadn't even made up his mind as of Feb 13. Also read my entire post, he won't set the date till he sees the estimate from USCIS.
Btw, my PD is Jan 03 and my LUD is still back in November 07 (when my attorney changed).
Most likely he'll see how much the demand really is and decide a cutoff at early 2002 or maybe even 2001. Remember EB-2 india vanished even after cutoff being at Jan 2000.
Btw, my PD is Jan 03 and my LUD is still back in November 07 (when my attorney changed).
Most likely he'll see how much the demand really is and decide a cutoff at early 2002 or maybe even 2001. Remember EB-2 india vanished even after cutoff being at Jan 2000.
wallpaper Tamil Love Poems Photos,
bmoni
04-09 06:43 PM
Thanks Papu !!!! thats great....
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
pj1
03-24 12:11 PM
Hi,
I am on an L1B visa which is valid till 2013.I want to know different options available if i wish to get an H1B visa.
Thanks
I am on an L1B visa which is valid till 2013.I want to know different options available if i wish to get an H1B visa.
Thanks
2011 Tamil Love Poems:
chmur
02-21 10:18 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
more...
spicy_guy
08-11 11:56 AM
Guys,
All EB3 Is are coming forward. Thats a good thing.
But do we have:
- A leader to lead this effort
- Agenda to follow
- Specific Goals
- Action Items
- Immediate Goals
Without these we are not going anywhere. But just wasting our time on top of our already surmounting frustration.
All EB3 Is are coming forward. Thats a good thing.
But do we have:
- A leader to lead this effort
- Agenda to follow
- Specific Goals
- Action Items
- Immediate Goals
Without these we are not going anywhere. But just wasting our time on top of our already surmounting frustration.
Alabaman
10-20 09:48 AM
You all have to look at this strategically. We all know at this stage of the election that Obama will likely win. We also know that congress is currently controlled by Democrats. If we have both congress and white house being controlled by democrats, then it is likely that we will have more things accomplished than if we have one party holding to one and another party holding to the other.
Forget the election rhetoric, Obama is not against legal immigrants (neither is McCain). At this stage, we have to look at the big picture which I just highlighted. What we should be working for right now (well I know we are not partisan) is for more democrats to win seats at the congressional and senate level so that bills that are pushed forward we have a better chance of passing and hopefully the ones that favor us and eliminate this backlog too.
So please you all should support Rick Norriega for TX senate (and all Democrat senatorial and congressional candidates) You can check out his immigration plan here http://www.ricknoriega.com/assets/img/immigration_plan.pdf
What say you??
Forget the election rhetoric, Obama is not against legal immigrants (neither is McCain). At this stage, we have to look at the big picture which I just highlighted. What we should be working for right now (well I know we are not partisan) is for more democrats to win seats at the congressional and senate level so that bills that are pushed forward we have a better chance of passing and hopefully the ones that favor us and eliminate this backlog too.
So please you all should support Rick Norriega for TX senate (and all Democrat senatorial and congressional candidates) You can check out his immigration plan here http://www.ricknoriega.com/assets/img/immigration_plan.pdf
What say you??
more...
BlueSunD
03-10 07:36 PM
Rendering..... the wait is killing me... :bounce: and I�m killing my cpu :P Hope I�ll still make it on time! :worried:
Very cool image Grinch! Kinda reminds me Max Payne! (I love that game!)
Very cool image Grinch! Kinda reminds me Max Payne! (I love that game!)
2010 Tamil Love Poems Images:
mordaut
02-27 08:38 PM
wow these are good...but im just wondering...what are they modelled after? ive never seen any subways like those...
more...
namecheck3yr
02-21 11:32 AM
I am trying to immigrate to this country. I feel that I have my own responsibility to make this country a better place. From my own experience, I know that the namecheck is the most ridiculous process, needs immediate fix:
1. What is the legal base? No legal base makes it become such a black hole.
2. No time frame, they can use �case by case�, �national security� as excuses to randomly delay your cases.
3. It�s a lottery, we can only pray, some people get it cleared in one month, some more than 3 yrs.
4. Case by case? We�ve got a lottery program. Where is the justice, the fairness? How should those affected people plan their living and become a productive citizen?
5. National security? You should not give those �terrorist suspects� more that 3 yrs of freedom! Should it be done earlier before they enter this country?
6. The 911 terrorist attacks did not directly affect most people, but name checking makes many people very anxious. They are amplifying the effect of the terrorist attacks and that is what the terrorist wants. What is the efficiency of this measure?
7. No transparency, nobody knows how they do it.
8. Not responsive, you cannot get any meaningful response except those excuses.
9. You are guilty first, you do not have any chance to provide any assistance to them, and they won�t request any either.
1. What is the legal base? No legal base makes it become such a black hole.
2. No time frame, they can use �case by case�, �national security� as excuses to randomly delay your cases.
3. It�s a lottery, we can only pray, some people get it cleared in one month, some more than 3 yrs.
4. Case by case? We�ve got a lottery program. Where is the justice, the fairness? How should those affected people plan their living and become a productive citizen?
5. National security? You should not give those �terrorist suspects� more that 3 yrs of freedom! Should it be done earlier before they enter this country?
6. The 911 terrorist attacks did not directly affect most people, but name checking makes many people very anxious. They are amplifying the effect of the terrorist attacks and that is what the terrorist wants. What is the efficiency of this measure?
7. No transparency, nobody knows how they do it.
8. Not responsive, you cannot get any meaningful response except those excuses.
9. You are guilty first, you do not have any chance to provide any assistance to them, and they won�t request any either.
hair love poems in tamil language
gc_kaavaali
12-21 09:22 PM
I-94 is not attached with H1...does he needs to go out of country and get it stamped?
AFAIK,a person can have only one status at a time.He is already in H1 if he had a I94 attached.However if he intends to travel out of the country and reenter he needs to get his visa stamped .If he has applied 485 then, he also has the option of using AP ,if it is approved.
AFAIK,a person can have only one status at a time.He is already in H1 if he had a I94 attached.However if he intends to travel out of the country and reenter he needs to get his visa stamped .If he has applied 485 then, he also has the option of using AP ,if it is approved.
more...
mps
05-15 05:34 PM
Here is a list of F50 CEO and which college they went to,
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1227055,00.html
I see very few going to top 10 colleges.
I'm doing my online MBA from Devry (Keller Graduate School of Management) and my spouse is doing it from UOP - at both the colleges professors are excellent, course material is good. Devry is more intense with midterm and final exams.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1227055,00.html
I see very few going to top 10 colleges.
I'm doing my online MBA from Devry (Keller Graduate School of Management) and my spouse is doing it from UOP - at both the colleges professors are excellent, course material is good. Devry is more intense with midterm and final exams.
hot love poems in tamil language
pappu
02-08 02:41 PM
In December, the CIS Ombudsman's Office began a pilot teleconference program on issues of concern to individuals and employers as they interface with USCIS. We have had three such pilot teleconferences so far and in February will continue with a few more. Please join us on Friday, February 16, from 11:00 a.m.-12:00 noon EST for the "Newark District Office: How Is It Working For You?" We look forward to hearing your comments, thoughts, and suggestions for improvement as well as any best practices you have noticed in your interaction with that office. We also would appreciate your thoughts regarding the Cherry Hill , NJ field office.
To participate in Friday's call, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov. The first 50 people to sign up will be able to participate and will receive a return email with the call-in information. If you are unable to participate on Friday, stay tuned for similar upcoming programs which will be posted on our website, www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. Also, if you have a topic of interest for a future call, please send it to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
We appreciate your assistance with this pilot program.
Thank you,
Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop: 1225
Washington , DC 20528-1225
Office: 202-357-8100
www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman
To participate in Friday's call, please RSVP to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov. The first 50 people to sign up will be able to participate and will receive a return email with the call-in information. If you are unable to participate on Friday, stay tuned for similar upcoming programs which will be posted on our website, www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. Also, if you have a topic of interest for a future call, please send it to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov.
We appreciate your assistance with this pilot program.
Thank you,
Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop: 1225
Washington , DC 20528-1225
Office: 202-357-8100
www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman
more...
house 2010 tamil friendship poems in
Jaime
09-12 11:08 AM
Who's still thinking about going or not? Email us! We'll help you in any way possible! Let's all go together!
tattoo poems in tamil. love poems
go_gc_way
12-31 04:28 PM
Just an update .. Following in following websites have posted with classifieds.
I am looking forward to more participation or other ideas from other Members ... or it's better I close this thread :)
Suggest ,comment or post a classified in a web site you know.
Following regional web sites have been posted with claissfied. Catch you folks later.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago .....................www.chicagosamachar.com
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego ................. www.sasural.com/san_diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston ...................... www.aapkamanoranjan.com
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland .....................www.eknazar.com
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
33) Atlanta .....................www.desigate.com,
34) Kanasas City ..............www.kcdesi.com
35) St. Louis ...................www.myilaaka.com
I am looking forward to more participation or other ideas from other Members ... or it's better I close this thread :)
Suggest ,comment or post a classified in a web site you know.
Following regional web sites have been posted with claissfied. Catch you folks later.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago .....................www.chicagosamachar.com
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego ................. www.sasural.com/san_diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston ...................... www.aapkamanoranjan.com
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland .....................www.eknazar.com
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
33) Atlanta .....................www.desigate.com,
34) Kanasas City ..............www.kcdesi.com
35) St. Louis ...................www.myilaaka.com
more...
pictures sad love quotes in tamil. love
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
dresses Tamil Love Poems Images: Nee
coolmanasip
07-24 10:08 AM
60 days...period of authorized stay.....check with the international advisor in school......
more...
makeup love poems in tamil language.
vaishalikumar
08-17 12:46 PM
It is bad visa bulletin for EB 3 .
girlfriend Garden of tamil soapfeb People in song may , Njana orutr y these heart poems
srini1976
07-02 05:23 PM
So far most of us have spent about 2 - 3k, lost invaluable time with stress & had sleepless nights.
DOS & USCIS should not be spared. Lets help IV & try our best to sue them. I just contributed $100.00 and will continue to contribute until the suckers are sued.
DOS & USCIS should not be spared. Lets help IV & try our best to sue them. I just contributed $100.00 and will continue to contribute until the suckers are sued.
hairstyles love poems in tamil language. dark love poems
suriajay12
02-19 07:21 AM
And who do you think is going to process the paperwork for illegals? ... guess again, the same agency that is processing for Legal would-be-could-be immigrants. So how is it not going to increase processing time which would ultimately result in further delay?
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
amitjoey
02-14 11:33 AM
I understand your frustration, but the rules are the same for everybody, and if India sends more immigrants to the US then any other country, that\\\'s not the US Government\'s fault.
If there were not per country limits, Indians would consume all those EB visas visas leaving no chance to the applicants from other countries to immigrate to the US legally.
That is not true.. Let me explain.. I want to give you an example to illustrate what the issue is: Think of a grocery check out line and let us assume for a moment that there are seperate counters for Indians, Chinese, Phill, MEX, ROW. So there are 5 counters. What is happening right now is that the queque for Indians and chinese and other retrogressed countries is long and snakes thru the aisles and they have to wait hours before they can check out, whereas ROW applicants can check out in minutes.
So it is not like Indians, or other retrogressed countries will consume all EB visas, If there were no country quotas. it is just that the waiting time to get one will be equal for everyone, irrespective of country of birth. That is how it should be, since it is an employment based visa..
The logic of employment based visas is that it was created to give visas (GC) to the applicants that were most needed by the US Employers at any given time. If the most qualified applicants that US employers prefer happen to be phillipinoes or chinese or Indians, that would mean there are more of those nationals.
If there were not per country limits, Indians would consume all those EB visas visas leaving no chance to the applicants from other countries to immigrate to the US legally.
That is not true.. Let me explain.. I want to give you an example to illustrate what the issue is: Think of a grocery check out line and let us assume for a moment that there are seperate counters for Indians, Chinese, Phill, MEX, ROW. So there are 5 counters. What is happening right now is that the queque for Indians and chinese and other retrogressed countries is long and snakes thru the aisles and they have to wait hours before they can check out, whereas ROW applicants can check out in minutes.
So it is not like Indians, or other retrogressed countries will consume all EB visas, If there were no country quotas. it is just that the waiting time to get one will be equal for everyone, irrespective of country of birth. That is how it should be, since it is an employment based visa..
The logic of employment based visas is that it was created to give visas (GC) to the applicants that were most needed by the US Employers at any given time. If the most qualified applicants that US employers prefer happen to be phillipinoes or chinese or Indians, that would mean there are more of those nationals.
amsgc
07-02 09:36 PM
Regarding your argument on fairness:
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
No comments:
Post a Comment