chanduv23
03-24 02:14 PM
I had little knowledge of immigration and of the type of people on h-1b and the type of companies who sponsor greencards when I first started perusing immigration boards. I thought many people were like me.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
UN - why do you think USCIS allows
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
UN - why do you think USCIS allows
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
wallpaper valentin elizalde muerto.
paskal
04-09 12:24 PM
Why do you need to hire other person if Joe is fit f
or the job though he is not as bright as other H1b person. For example you do not need IIT graduate for QA position. For example If you want a core system software programmer in TCP/IP level or semiconductor R&D you can go brightest in the World. Bill Gates is an exception. 95% of bright people will have degree or more in current world.
i can only answer from a personal perspective.
that logic works fine in some jobs and for those, that is exactly how it should be. for jobs that need some analysis/creative thinking etc it makes a huge difference. yell me why you would like to get a degree from the best school/ same degree right?
i am a physician, if i were recruiting tomorrow (and we are) a million things matter. education, experience, acquired skills, where the applicant worked, what the patient population was etc
by uscis rules anyone with board certification in our specialty is fine. if we advertise for more...we are breaking the law. if we take the better candidate with more skills...again if he /she has a visa, we breaking the law. pretty restrictive would you not say? understand that the group would gladly gladly hire an american if he fit in with the vision of what we need. but good candidates are scarce. and settling for the not so good bloke seems just not right.
any way which physician would you choose to go to? these days patients come to us after checking our detailed credentials on the website. They know when they walk in whther i trained at the mayo clinic or abcd community hospital. so yes it matters, to you and to my group.
or the job though he is not as bright as other H1b person. For example you do not need IIT graduate for QA position. For example If you want a core system software programmer in TCP/IP level or semiconductor R&D you can go brightest in the World. Bill Gates is an exception. 95% of bright people will have degree or more in current world.
i can only answer from a personal perspective.
that logic works fine in some jobs and for those, that is exactly how it should be. for jobs that need some analysis/creative thinking etc it makes a huge difference. yell me why you would like to get a degree from the best school/ same degree right?
i am a physician, if i were recruiting tomorrow (and we are) a million things matter. education, experience, acquired skills, where the applicant worked, what the patient population was etc
by uscis rules anyone with board certification in our specialty is fine. if we advertise for more...we are breaking the law. if we take the better candidate with more skills...again if he /she has a visa, we breaking the law. pretty restrictive would you not say? understand that the group would gladly gladly hire an american if he fit in with the vision of what we need. but good candidates are scarce. and settling for the not so good bloke seems just not right.
any way which physician would you choose to go to? these days patients come to us after checking our detailed credentials on the website. They know when they walk in whther i trained at the mayo clinic or abcd community hospital. so yes it matters, to you and to my group.
setpit_gc
08-05 04:23 PM
Rolling Food,
Don't waste your money and energy. You will fail if you go with this idea.
Try it out if you can.
BTW, I am in the process of porting my PD and category.
Don't waste your money and energy. You will fail if you go with this idea.
Try it out if you can.
BTW, I am in the process of porting my PD and category.
2011 valentin elizalde muerte.
VSS2007
07-13 12:28 AM
Really Good Work!!!
more...
xyzgc
12-26 01:04 PM
India is already at war with the terrorist state of Pakistan! Just that we never realize it and try to talk about peace all the time...you can see what Pakis have done to curb terrorism! Are the peace talks working? Did they ever work?
Mark my words, there are going to many more attacks in the future, disrupting Indian business and economy...killing innocent civilians...is that anything short of a war?
If India leaders don't take any concrete steps to put a lid on this, they are the greatest fools on this planet.
Mark my words, there are going to many more attacks in the future, disrupting Indian business and economy...killing innocent civilians...is that anything short of a war?
If India leaders don't take any concrete steps to put a lid on this, they are the greatest fools on this planet.
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
more...
Macaca
05-01 05:56 PM
In growing Chinese dominance, a wake-up call for America (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-growing-chinese-dominance-a-wake-up-call-for-america/2011/04/27/AF7i3zGF_story.html) By Arvind Subramanian | The Washington Post
The world’s two economic superpowers will meet soon for the third installment of their Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Beyond the specifics, the real issue for the United States and the world is China’s looming economic dominance. President Obama’s State of the Union address, after President Hu Jintao’s visit in January, showed the level of anxiety that policymakers feel about China as a potential rival and perhaps a threat, with growing economic, military and political power, including its bankrolling of American debt. But judging from the reaction to the president’s speech, that threat is not viewed as imminent. The same was said, some pointed out, of the rise of Russia and Japan, 40 and 20 years ago, respectively, and those threats turned out to be false alarms.
But what if the threat is actually greater than policymakers suppose?
According to the International Monetary Fund, for example, total U.S. gross domestic product in 2010 was $14.7 trillion, more than twice China’s $5.8 trillion, making the average American about 11 times more affluent than the average Chinese. Goldman Sachs does not forecast the Chinese economy overtaking that of the United States until 2025 at the earliest. Americans also draw satisfaction from their unmatched strengths of an open society, an entrepreneurial culture, and world-class universities and research institutions.
But these beliefs may be overly sanguine. The underlying numbers that contribute to them are a little misleading because they are based on converting the value of goods and services around the world into dollars at market exchange rates.
It has long been recognized that using the market exchange rate to value goods and services is misleading about the real costs of living in different countries. Several goods and services that are not traded across borders (medical care, retail services, construction, etc.) are cheaper in poorer countries because labor is abundant. Using the market exchange rate to compare living standards across countries understates the benefits that citizens in poor countries enjoy from having access to these goods and services. Estimates of purchasing power parity take account of these differing costs and are an alternative, and for some purposes a better, way of computing and comparing standards of living and economic output across countries.
My calculations (explained in greater detail on the Peterson Institute Web site) show that the Chinese economy in 2010, adjusted for purchasing power, was worth about $14.8 trillion, surpassing that of the United States. And, on this basis, the average American is “only” four times as wealthy as the average Chinese, not 11 times as rich, as the conventional numbers suggest.
The different approaches to valuing economic output and resources are not just of theoretical interest. They have real-world significance, especially in the balance of power and economic dominance. The conventional numbers would suggest that the United States has three times the capability of China to mobilize real military resources in the event of a conflict. The numbers based on purchasing-power parity suggest that conventional estimates considerably exaggerate U.S. capability. To the extent that the service of soldiers and other domestically produced goods and services constitute real military resources, the purchasing-power parity numbers must also be taken into account.
The economic advantage China is gaining will only widen in the future because China’s gross domestic product growth rate will be substantially and consistently greater than that of the United States for the near future. By 2030, I expect the Chinese economy to be twice as large as that of the United States (in purchasing-power parity dollars).
Moreover, China’s lead will not be confined to GDP. China is already the world’s largest exporter of goods. By 2030, China’s trade volume will be twice that of the United States. And, of course, China is also a net creditor to the United States.
The combination of economic size, trade and creditor status will confer on China a kind of economic dominance that the United States enjoyed for about five to six decades after World War II and that Britain enjoyed at the peak of empire in the late 19th century.
This will matter in two important ways. America’s ability to influence China will be seriously diminished, which is already evident in China’s unwillingness to change its exchange rate policy despite U.S. urging. And the open trading and financial system that the United States fashioned after World War II will be increasingly China’s to sustain or undermine.
The new numbers, the underlying realities they represent and the future they portend must serve as a wake-up call for America to get its fiscal house in order and quickly find new sources of economic dynamism if it is not to cede its preeminence to a rising, perhaps already risen, China.
Arvind Subramanian is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute and the author of a forthcoming book on China’s economic dominance
America vs China: A reality check (http://businessstandard.com/india/news/arvind-subramanian-america-vs-chinareality-check/434188/) By Arvind Subramanian | Business Standard
The Chinese Are Coming! (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/01/the-chinese-are-coming/) By Douglas H. Paal | The Diploma
Do American Students Study Too Hard?
A new documentary argues that kids these days memorize too many facts. Go figure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703655404576292752313629990.html)
By JAMES FREEMAN | Wall Street Journal
Eyeing the White House After Service in China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us/politics/01huntsman.html) By MICHAEL WINES | New York Times
At Microsoft, future growth rides on research, innovation (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article1983686.ece) By G. ANANTHAKRISHNAN | Hindu
Financial crisis? What financial crisis? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/financial-crisis-what-financial-crisis/2011/04/26/AFhB2oNF_story.html) By Steven Pearlstein | The Washington Post
The free-trade trade (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-free-trade-trade/2011/04/28/AF3TsXNF_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html) By Lori Montgomery | The Washington Post
The world’s two economic superpowers will meet soon for the third installment of their Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Beyond the specifics, the real issue for the United States and the world is China’s looming economic dominance. President Obama’s State of the Union address, after President Hu Jintao’s visit in January, showed the level of anxiety that policymakers feel about China as a potential rival and perhaps a threat, with growing economic, military and political power, including its bankrolling of American debt. But judging from the reaction to the president’s speech, that threat is not viewed as imminent. The same was said, some pointed out, of the rise of Russia and Japan, 40 and 20 years ago, respectively, and those threats turned out to be false alarms.
But what if the threat is actually greater than policymakers suppose?
According to the International Monetary Fund, for example, total U.S. gross domestic product in 2010 was $14.7 trillion, more than twice China’s $5.8 trillion, making the average American about 11 times more affluent than the average Chinese. Goldman Sachs does not forecast the Chinese economy overtaking that of the United States until 2025 at the earliest. Americans also draw satisfaction from their unmatched strengths of an open society, an entrepreneurial culture, and world-class universities and research institutions.
But these beliefs may be overly sanguine. The underlying numbers that contribute to them are a little misleading because they are based on converting the value of goods and services around the world into dollars at market exchange rates.
It has long been recognized that using the market exchange rate to value goods and services is misleading about the real costs of living in different countries. Several goods and services that are not traded across borders (medical care, retail services, construction, etc.) are cheaper in poorer countries because labor is abundant. Using the market exchange rate to compare living standards across countries understates the benefits that citizens in poor countries enjoy from having access to these goods and services. Estimates of purchasing power parity take account of these differing costs and are an alternative, and for some purposes a better, way of computing and comparing standards of living and economic output across countries.
My calculations (explained in greater detail on the Peterson Institute Web site) show that the Chinese economy in 2010, adjusted for purchasing power, was worth about $14.8 trillion, surpassing that of the United States. And, on this basis, the average American is “only” four times as wealthy as the average Chinese, not 11 times as rich, as the conventional numbers suggest.
The different approaches to valuing economic output and resources are not just of theoretical interest. They have real-world significance, especially in the balance of power and economic dominance. The conventional numbers would suggest that the United States has three times the capability of China to mobilize real military resources in the event of a conflict. The numbers based on purchasing-power parity suggest that conventional estimates considerably exaggerate U.S. capability. To the extent that the service of soldiers and other domestically produced goods and services constitute real military resources, the purchasing-power parity numbers must also be taken into account.
The economic advantage China is gaining will only widen in the future because China’s gross domestic product growth rate will be substantially and consistently greater than that of the United States for the near future. By 2030, I expect the Chinese economy to be twice as large as that of the United States (in purchasing-power parity dollars).
Moreover, China’s lead will not be confined to GDP. China is already the world’s largest exporter of goods. By 2030, China’s trade volume will be twice that of the United States. And, of course, China is also a net creditor to the United States.
The combination of economic size, trade and creditor status will confer on China a kind of economic dominance that the United States enjoyed for about five to six decades after World War II and that Britain enjoyed at the peak of empire in the late 19th century.
This will matter in two important ways. America’s ability to influence China will be seriously diminished, which is already evident in China’s unwillingness to change its exchange rate policy despite U.S. urging. And the open trading and financial system that the United States fashioned after World War II will be increasingly China’s to sustain or undermine.
The new numbers, the underlying realities they represent and the future they portend must serve as a wake-up call for America to get its fiscal house in order and quickly find new sources of economic dynamism if it is not to cede its preeminence to a rising, perhaps already risen, China.
Arvind Subramanian is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute and the author of a forthcoming book on China’s economic dominance
America vs China: A reality check (http://businessstandard.com/india/news/arvind-subramanian-america-vs-chinareality-check/434188/) By Arvind Subramanian | Business Standard
The Chinese Are Coming! (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/01/the-chinese-are-coming/) By Douglas H. Paal | The Diploma
Do American Students Study Too Hard?
A new documentary argues that kids these days memorize too many facts. Go figure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703655404576292752313629990.html)
By JAMES FREEMAN | Wall Street Journal
Eyeing the White House After Service in China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us/politics/01huntsman.html) By MICHAEL WINES | New York Times
At Microsoft, future growth rides on research, innovation (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article1983686.ece) By G. ANANTHAKRISHNAN | Hindu
Financial crisis? What financial crisis? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/financial-crisis-what-financial-crisis/2011/04/26/AFhB2oNF_story.html) By Steven Pearlstein | The Washington Post
The free-trade trade (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-free-trade-trade/2011/04/28/AF3TsXNF_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html) By Lori Montgomery | The Washington Post
2010 valentin elizalde muerte.
nogc_noproblem
08-07 03:40 PM
George Bush: When you rearrange the letters: He bugs Gore
Dormitory: When you rearrange the letters: Dirty Room
Desperation: When you rearrange the letters: A Rope Ends It
The Morse Code: When you rearrange the letters: Here Come Dots
Mother-in-law: When you rearrange the letters: Woman Hitler
Snooze Alarms: When you rearrange the letters: Alas! No More Z's
A Decimal Point: When you rearrange the letters: I'm a Dot in Place
The Earthquakes: When you rearrange the letters: That Queer Shake
Eleven plus two: When you rearrange the letters: Twelve plus one
Dormitory: When you rearrange the letters: Dirty Room
Desperation: When you rearrange the letters: A Rope Ends It
The Morse Code: When you rearrange the letters: Here Come Dots
Mother-in-law: When you rearrange the letters: Woman Hitler
Snooze Alarms: When you rearrange the letters: Alas! No More Z's
A Decimal Point: When you rearrange the letters: I'm a Dot in Place
The Earthquakes: When you rearrange the letters: That Queer Shake
Eleven plus two: When you rearrange the letters: Twelve plus one
more...
rvr_jcop
03-25 02:19 PM
I heard from the grapevine that UNITEDNATIONS will be the next USCIS chief - so folks better behave with him or he wil report ya all :D :D :D :D
If it wasn't for UNITED NATIONS, I wouldnt have got my 140 approved 2 years ago. His guidelines on A2P saved me. And whatever he says, I take it seriously. Thank You UN.
If it wasn't for UNITED NATIONS, I wouldnt have got my 140 approved 2 years ago. His guidelines on A2P saved me. And whatever he says, I take it seriously. Thank You UN.
hair 2011 house valentin elizalde
waitnwatch
08-05 03:32 PM
If that's the law then there is not much of a debate here!
I think admin should close the thread as the point of a lawsuit is moot.
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
I think admin should close the thread as the point of a lawsuit is moot.
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
more...
sledge_hammer
06-26 04:06 PM
Have you accounted for the increase in rent (not rent controlled) every year? Mortgage on the other hand is fixed for 30 years!
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
hot Valentin Elizalde#39;s Photos
Macaca
12-30 05:35 PM
India Digs In Its Heels as China Flexes Its Muscles (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/world/asia/30india.html) By JIM YARDLEY | New York Times
It has been the season of geopolitical hugs in India � with one noticeable exception. One after the other, the leaders of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have descended on India, accompanied by delegations of business leaders, seeking closer ties with this rising South Asian giant. The Indian media, basking in the high-level attention, have nicknamed them the �P-5.�
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain got a warm reception last summer. Then President Obama wowed a skeptical Indian establishment during his November visit. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed nuclear deals in early December, while President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia departed last week with a fistful of defense contracts after winning praise for Moscow as a �special partner.�
The exception to the cheery mood was the mid-December visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China. Mr. Wen did secure business deals, announce new trade goals and offer reassurances of friendly Chinese intentions. But the trip also underscored that many points of tension between the Asian giants � trade imbalances, their disputed border and the status of Kashmir � are growing worse. And the Indian foreign policy establishment, once reluctant to challenge China, is taking a harder line.
�The Wen visit has widened the gap publicly between India and China,� said Ranjit Gupta, a retired Indian diplomat and one of many vocal analysts pushing a more hawkish line toward China. �And it represents for the first time a greater realism in the Indian establishment�s approach to China.�
India aspires to membership on the United Nations Security Council, and China is now the only permanent member nation that has not explicitly endorsed such a move. But what has rattled Indian leaders even more is their contention that China is being deliberately provocative in Kashmir as it grows closer to Pakistan, China�s longtime ally and India�s nemesis. China has also been expanding its diplomatic and economic influence around South Asia, stepping up its involvement in the affairs of Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives.
Mr. Wen�s visit was supposed to help address those tensions at a time when India is starting to draw closer to the United States. Among Chinese leaders, Mr. Wen is perceived as a friend of India, and his 2005 visit was regarded as a breakthrough after he and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed on a broad framework to address the border dispute.
For decades since fighting a brief border war, the two countries had argued over the boundary lines, with China making claims to Arunachal Pradesh, an eastern Indian state, and India claiming portions of Tibet that abut Indian-controlled Kashmir. The 2005 deal fostered optimism that some sort of quid pro quo compromise could be reached, enabling the two countries to concentrate on trade. And trade took off: it has risen tenfold to almost $60 billion, with Mr. Wen setting a new goal of $100 billion.
But Indian leaders now complain that trade is far too lopsided in China�s favor and say that Indian corporations face too many obstacles in entering the Chinese market. Mr. Wen promised to help Indian corporations sell their products in China, but Indian officials are skeptical.
Meanwhile, China infuriated India by starting to issue special stapled paper visas � rather than the standard visa � for anyone in Indian-controlled Kashmir traveling to China on the grounds that Kashmir is a disputed territory. China later objected to including a top Indian general responsible for Kashmir in a military exchange in China. In response, Indian officials angrily suspended all military exchanges between the countries. Indian officials had thought Mr. Wen might reverse the stapled visas policy on his trip, but he instead only called for more diplomatic consultations.
Indian commentators have noticed that articles in the Chinese state-run media have renewed Chinese claims that the disputed border between the nations is roughly 1,240 miles in length � even as India puts the length at about 2,175 miles. The difference roughly represents the border between Indian-controlled Kashmir and Tibetan China. By omitting this section, the Chinese are questioning the status of Indian-controlled Kashmir, a position that buttresses Pakistan�s own claims, several Indian analysts have argued.
The most visible evidence that these problems were deepening came in the joint communiqu� issued by the two nations at the end of Mr. Wen�s visit. China typically demands that nations voice support for the one-China policy, which holds that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. In past communiqu�s, India has agreed to such language, but this time it was omitted, a clear sign of Indian irritation.
�It has been in every communiqu�, but the Chinese didn�t even bring it up,� said a senior Indian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. �I think they knew if they had brought it up, they knew we would have demanded some movement on the stapled visa issue and the Kashmir issue.�
The senior official added: �They must understand that there is a prospect of the relationship really going south. They will have to somehow moderate their stand on Kashmir. And they will have to take concrete steps to address the trade imbalance.�
India and China still cooperate on climate change and international trade policy, and some Indian diplomats grumble that the positive aspects of the relationship are too often overlooked by aggressive media organizations and an emboldened group of strategic analysts pushing for a harder line. China�s state-run media outlets recently broadcast images of a new tunnel being completed through the Himalayas near the Indian border. These reports looked to some like boasting about the country�s engineering prowess. In India, they were presented as a warning that China was building its infrastructure ever closer to India.
At the same time, India is watching warily as China pursues hydro projects that could affect the downstream flow of the Brahmaputra River in India.
Some Indian analysts note that tensions with China have increased in lockstep with the warming trend between India and the United States. During his visit, Mr. Obama spoke of a �defining partnership� between India and the United States and encouraged India to play a bigger role not only in South Asia but also in East Asia, China�s backyard. Mr. Singh, in fact, had just finished a trip to Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam as part of India�s �Look East� policy to build trade and diplomatic ties in the region.
�Our challenge will be to build our own leverage,� the senior Indian official said.
�That is why the relationships with the United States, with Japan, with other Southeast Asian parties, all that will become even more important.�
It has been the season of geopolitical hugs in India � with one noticeable exception. One after the other, the leaders of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have descended on India, accompanied by delegations of business leaders, seeking closer ties with this rising South Asian giant. The Indian media, basking in the high-level attention, have nicknamed them the �P-5.�
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain got a warm reception last summer. Then President Obama wowed a skeptical Indian establishment during his November visit. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed nuclear deals in early December, while President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia departed last week with a fistful of defense contracts after winning praise for Moscow as a �special partner.�
The exception to the cheery mood was the mid-December visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China. Mr. Wen did secure business deals, announce new trade goals and offer reassurances of friendly Chinese intentions. But the trip also underscored that many points of tension between the Asian giants � trade imbalances, their disputed border and the status of Kashmir � are growing worse. And the Indian foreign policy establishment, once reluctant to challenge China, is taking a harder line.
�The Wen visit has widened the gap publicly between India and China,� said Ranjit Gupta, a retired Indian diplomat and one of many vocal analysts pushing a more hawkish line toward China. �And it represents for the first time a greater realism in the Indian establishment�s approach to China.�
India aspires to membership on the United Nations Security Council, and China is now the only permanent member nation that has not explicitly endorsed such a move. But what has rattled Indian leaders even more is their contention that China is being deliberately provocative in Kashmir as it grows closer to Pakistan, China�s longtime ally and India�s nemesis. China has also been expanding its diplomatic and economic influence around South Asia, stepping up its involvement in the affairs of Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives.
Mr. Wen�s visit was supposed to help address those tensions at a time when India is starting to draw closer to the United States. Among Chinese leaders, Mr. Wen is perceived as a friend of India, and his 2005 visit was regarded as a breakthrough after he and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed on a broad framework to address the border dispute.
For decades since fighting a brief border war, the two countries had argued over the boundary lines, with China making claims to Arunachal Pradesh, an eastern Indian state, and India claiming portions of Tibet that abut Indian-controlled Kashmir. The 2005 deal fostered optimism that some sort of quid pro quo compromise could be reached, enabling the two countries to concentrate on trade. And trade took off: it has risen tenfold to almost $60 billion, with Mr. Wen setting a new goal of $100 billion.
But Indian leaders now complain that trade is far too lopsided in China�s favor and say that Indian corporations face too many obstacles in entering the Chinese market. Mr. Wen promised to help Indian corporations sell their products in China, but Indian officials are skeptical.
Meanwhile, China infuriated India by starting to issue special stapled paper visas � rather than the standard visa � for anyone in Indian-controlled Kashmir traveling to China on the grounds that Kashmir is a disputed territory. China later objected to including a top Indian general responsible for Kashmir in a military exchange in China. In response, Indian officials angrily suspended all military exchanges between the countries. Indian officials had thought Mr. Wen might reverse the stapled visas policy on his trip, but he instead only called for more diplomatic consultations.
Indian commentators have noticed that articles in the Chinese state-run media have renewed Chinese claims that the disputed border between the nations is roughly 1,240 miles in length � even as India puts the length at about 2,175 miles. The difference roughly represents the border between Indian-controlled Kashmir and Tibetan China. By omitting this section, the Chinese are questioning the status of Indian-controlled Kashmir, a position that buttresses Pakistan�s own claims, several Indian analysts have argued.
The most visible evidence that these problems were deepening came in the joint communiqu� issued by the two nations at the end of Mr. Wen�s visit. China typically demands that nations voice support for the one-China policy, which holds that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. In past communiqu�s, India has agreed to such language, but this time it was omitted, a clear sign of Indian irritation.
�It has been in every communiqu�, but the Chinese didn�t even bring it up,� said a senior Indian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. �I think they knew if they had brought it up, they knew we would have demanded some movement on the stapled visa issue and the Kashmir issue.�
The senior official added: �They must understand that there is a prospect of the relationship really going south. They will have to somehow moderate their stand on Kashmir. And they will have to take concrete steps to address the trade imbalance.�
India and China still cooperate on climate change and international trade policy, and some Indian diplomats grumble that the positive aspects of the relationship are too often overlooked by aggressive media organizations and an emboldened group of strategic analysts pushing for a harder line. China�s state-run media outlets recently broadcast images of a new tunnel being completed through the Himalayas near the Indian border. These reports looked to some like boasting about the country�s engineering prowess. In India, they were presented as a warning that China was building its infrastructure ever closer to India.
At the same time, India is watching warily as China pursues hydro projects that could affect the downstream flow of the Brahmaputra River in India.
Some Indian analysts note that tensions with China have increased in lockstep with the warming trend between India and the United States. During his visit, Mr. Obama spoke of a �defining partnership� between India and the United States and encouraged India to play a bigger role not only in South Asia but also in East Asia, China�s backyard. Mr. Singh, in fact, had just finished a trip to Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam as part of India�s �Look East� policy to build trade and diplomatic ties in the region.
�Our challenge will be to build our own leverage,� the senior Indian official said.
�That is why the relationships with the United States, with Japan, with other Southeast Asian parties, all that will become even more important.�
more...
house Valentin Elizalde with white
unseenguy
06-24 11:55 PM
Why are be debating 3 - 4 years rent vs own? As the subject indicates "long" term prospects of buying a home..we of all the ppl should know the meaning of the word "long" based on our "long" wait for PD (which I think should be renamed to retrogress date because I see nothing priority about it)..the point being lets debate 10 years rent vs own..as against 3-4...I think over a 10 year timeline the buyers would come out ahead of the renters..maybe not in CA but in other states that's quite likely..
I agree that over 10 years buyers "may" come ahead of renters but our question is will buyers of : 2009 come out ahead of 2010 buyers or 2011 buyers? Also is it worth taking a risk and wait 1-2 years given the state of economy and our GC in limbo.
I have been paying rent since 2001 and my friends bought houses in 2004 & 2007. None at the moment think they are ahead of me due to their decision :) :p
I agree that over 10 years buyers "may" come ahead of renters but our question is will buyers of : 2009 come out ahead of 2010 buyers or 2011 buyers? Also is it worth taking a risk and wait 1-2 years given the state of economy and our GC in limbo.
I have been paying rent since 2001 and my friends bought houses in 2004 & 2007. None at the moment think they are ahead of me due to their decision :) :p
tattoo valentin elizalde sobres
jaocanada
07-17 02:08 PM
Manub,
Our prayers are with God to get you and your family out of this difficult period. I know of a close friend who went thru a similar situation regarding distress sale of the house but finally it all worked out. So keep the faith and be strong. Good luck.
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
Our prayers are with God to get you and your family out of this difficult period. I know of a close friend who went thru a similar situation regarding distress sale of the house but finally it all worked out. So keep the faith and be strong. Good luck.
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
more...
pictures valentin elizalde muerto.
mariner5555
04-06 06:55 AM
Land cannot be manufactured. The population is growing by the day and people need a place to live. So the space is at a premium here. The housing market maybe down because of the sub-prime crisis and the banks going out of business. But eventually it has to come back. Maybe this market is not for people who are looking to invest.
Look at india for instance: whatever state the economy is in, the housing always booms because of the supply/demand factor. Eventually US will reach that stage unless otherwise the population shrinks.
land cannot be manufactured but look around. US has a massive excess of land compared to its population. what you say about India is correct(to some degree but there are local bubbles out there too)..US will never have that ratio of people / land. especially you don't know what the trend is going to be with the baby boomers ..will they sell their houses and live in mexico ..you never know (so cannot predict). price of land will go up over long long term (due to inflation) but in the short term it is DOWN DOWN and DOWN. if one can wait for a year then they should wait ..and if you do a analysis of costs ..renting is not throwing off yr money ..you get a place to stay (a place which has mobility, less maintenance etc). Especially if you are in banking or related sectors ..just wait ..u don't know who will collapse next.
btw for central NJ (not familiar with that area) ..the price projection in next 5 years is still down.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/price_rent_ratios/
here is another point from earlier post
------------
Because the baby-boom generation is so much bigger than succeeding generations, the ratio of people in the retirement years, 65 and older, to those in the working years, 20 to 64, will rise from 20.6% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2030, according to the Census Bureau.
For most people, the house they live in is their biggest retirement asset. In retirement, people cash in on the value of their homes by selling and then buying less expensive houses, renting or moving in with the kids.
-----------
Look at india for instance: whatever state the economy is in, the housing always booms because of the supply/demand factor. Eventually US will reach that stage unless otherwise the population shrinks.
land cannot be manufactured but look around. US has a massive excess of land compared to its population. what you say about India is correct(to some degree but there are local bubbles out there too)..US will never have that ratio of people / land. especially you don't know what the trend is going to be with the baby boomers ..will they sell their houses and live in mexico ..you never know (so cannot predict). price of land will go up over long long term (due to inflation) but in the short term it is DOWN DOWN and DOWN. if one can wait for a year then they should wait ..and if you do a analysis of costs ..renting is not throwing off yr money ..you get a place to stay (a place which has mobility, less maintenance etc). Especially if you are in banking or related sectors ..just wait ..u don't know who will collapse next.
btw for central NJ (not familiar with that area) ..the price projection in next 5 years is still down.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/price_rent_ratios/
here is another point from earlier post
------------
Because the baby-boom generation is so much bigger than succeeding generations, the ratio of people in the retirement years, 65 and older, to those in the working years, 20 to 64, will rise from 20.6% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2030, according to the Census Bureau.
For most people, the house they live in is their biggest retirement asset. In retirement, people cash in on the value of their homes by selling and then buying less expensive houses, renting or moving in with the kids.
-----------
dresses Fotos Muerte Valentin Elizalde
unitednations
03-26 05:51 PM
Does this mean that H1B is also location specific?
There has been no definitive guidance. H-1b is specific to company, candidate with job duties. If there is a "material change" then it should be amended.
Material change has not been defined in all encompassing ways. it is a gray area whether one needs to amend h-1b for another location. In that particular case; aao seemed to imply that another work location was a material change. There was no follow up after they made the decision. One of the posters who participated on that thread said that he knew that particular person and after that decsion his lawyer showed LCA's and the case was approved.
However; it still wasn't conclusive of whether that was good enough. Reason being was that the candidates labor was filed in 2000 and he had 245i protection and that in itself would have protected him from his out of status issues; ultimately on that specific case of working on different locations would not have had an impact because he was protected in other ways.
There has been no definitive guidance. H-1b is specific to company, candidate with job duties. If there is a "material change" then it should be amended.
Material change has not been defined in all encompassing ways. it is a gray area whether one needs to amend h-1b for another location. In that particular case; aao seemed to imply that another work location was a material change. There was no follow up after they made the decision. One of the posters who participated on that thread said that he knew that particular person and after that decsion his lawyer showed LCA's and the case was approved.
However; it still wasn't conclusive of whether that was good enough. Reason being was that the candidates labor was filed in 2000 and he had 245i protection and that in itself would have protected him from his out of status issues; ultimately on that specific case of working on different locations would not have had an impact because he was protected in other ways.
more...
makeup images Valentin Elizalde with
satishku_2000
05-16 05:12 PM
Both are problems. The misuse of H-1B visa petitions prevent honest people from obtaining such a visa. That is not right. The issue of the illegal immigrants in this country is an ugly one as well. In my personal opinion, I do not believe any talks of amnesty should affect people with green card petitions pending. People given amnesty should go to the very back of the line and pay a serious fine on top of that.
In earlier posts you were talking about how people have to leave if they can not get their H1 renewed under new law saying some one who cannot find "real job" should leave.
What kind of real jobs these undocumented people have , that your beloved Senator loves them so much ? Shouldn't they be deported first according to you law and order folks?
In earlier posts you were talking about how people have to leave if they can not get their H1 renewed under new law saying some one who cannot find "real job" should leave.
What kind of real jobs these undocumented people have , that your beloved Senator loves them so much ? Shouldn't they be deported first according to you law and order folks?
girlfriend images valentin elizalde muerto. valentin elizalde muerte. fotos de la
waitnwatch
05-24 10:38 PM
I agree. But lets not scare away people either by such open criticism and rudeness. If no one responds to such questions, then ppl will automatically start looking things up in this or other web-sites.
-R
you're right! I got a bit carried away given that the discussion in the thread was kind of intense at that moment. your point is taken.
-R
you're right! I got a bit carried away given that the discussion in the thread was kind of intense at that moment. your point is taken.
hairstyles valentin elizalde muerto. valentin elizalde muerto. El cantante quot;El Loco
boreal
09-27 12:31 PM
Obama might be the only person who is still sane and might want to end the war, save the country 10b per month. This might have its own positive effects as there would be more money to spend on economic development in the US, which in turn might mean slowly improving economy and better jobs. All of these might translate into optimism in the country and lesser opposition to EB immigrants in general. Agreed that Durbin might try to derail the EB process by the introduction of new skills based program and what not...but highly doubt that it would be applicable retro-actively and affect ppl already in the queue. And for new EB applicants, they would know what they are getting into, if such a points based system is introduced, and hell, might work for quite a few of the new EB applicants...
Mccain, on the other hand, seems to so over-confident and as arrogant as his predecessor that he he failed to mention, even once, that the war needs to end. (as evidenced by yday's debate at Ole Miss). He is still talking about 'strategies and tactics of war and differences between them' in the debate when the nation is reeling under the most severe economic crisis...the point is that this guy doesnt seem to be the person that will be of any help either to the country or the EB immigrants like us. He is nothing but an extension of the Bush Government and i hope that he doesnt become the President (not that he has great chances either)
Anyway, whoever becomes the President, as someone put it .."Its the Congress, stupid!!' The congress would still need to act on any legislation. And the way the things are working since 2005, election year or not, it seems to be a very uphill task to get anything passed, be it for illegal or legal immigrants. The anti-immigrants force seems to be so strong that it seems almost impossible for anything to be passed for any kind of immigration..so, i believe the status-quo would continue even after the new President takes over..
Well, that leaves us, poor EB immigrants, as usual at the mercy of USCIS...if we are lucky enough, we will still be emloyed when our visa number becomes available...(Remember that Seinfeld episode when the Seinfeld party finally gets the table at the Chinese Restaurant, but they are long gone..!!!)
Mccain, on the other hand, seems to so over-confident and as arrogant as his predecessor that he he failed to mention, even once, that the war needs to end. (as evidenced by yday's debate at Ole Miss). He is still talking about 'strategies and tactics of war and differences between them' in the debate when the nation is reeling under the most severe economic crisis...the point is that this guy doesnt seem to be the person that will be of any help either to the country or the EB immigrants like us. He is nothing but an extension of the Bush Government and i hope that he doesnt become the President (not that he has great chances either)
Anyway, whoever becomes the President, as someone put it .."Its the Congress, stupid!!' The congress would still need to act on any legislation. And the way the things are working since 2005, election year or not, it seems to be a very uphill task to get anything passed, be it for illegal or legal immigrants. The anti-immigrants force seems to be so strong that it seems almost impossible for anything to be passed for any kind of immigration..so, i believe the status-quo would continue even after the new President takes over..
Well, that leaves us, poor EB immigrants, as usual at the mercy of USCIS...if we are lucky enough, we will still be emloyed when our visa number becomes available...(Remember that Seinfeld episode when the Seinfeld party finally gets the table at the Chinese Restaurant, but they are long gone..!!!)
sledge_hammer
03-24 07:14 PM
Can you please explain how you conluded that my theory was its okay to copy (exploit loopholes) unless you get caught?
Please point to the exact post of mine...
Again, I am not defending anyone, I am saying that we should point all the consultanting...not just desi consulting ones...just don't descriminate...from your theory, it looks it is ok to copy unless you are caught.....I don't want to argue on this and deviate from the OP .
Please point to the exact post of mine...
Again, I am not defending anyone, I am saying that we should point all the consultanting...not just desi consulting ones...just don't descriminate...from your theory, it looks it is ok to copy unless you are caught.....I don't want to argue on this and deviate from the OP .
mariner5555
04-14 04:01 PM
Unfortunately time will never move in reverse and will move in just one direction. A childhood gone is gone. It will never come back. We all want good things for our kids. My perception of good thing is different from yours. If my kid says that he wants to live in an apartment I will move to an apartment, that’s a given.
Exactly. now before you jump ..let me say that this may not be applicable to you. but most of the people that I know of, who have very young kids ( 1 - 5/6 year olds) ..buying a house was a wrong decision. (and common sense says the same thing). Because they bought the house - either they had to slog extra or take up 2 jobs and/or spouse has to work. some of them had a baby sitter ..who would put the kid in front of the TV all day. some of the kids are/were at home all day with their mother (but no friends) and hence they were lonely. (wife does not know how to drive or only one car) ..some of the luckier ones were the ones who could afford to put them in all day daycare
(but in this case ..kid hardly knows his parents well). now ofcourse there are some exceptions --where the sub-division of houses have lot of likeminded people / kids of same age and hence the kids have friends.
in my humble opinion ..the best case is where a mother takes care of the son as long as possible and at the same time the kid plays with other kids of same age ..(there are definitely many exceptions) ...and most (neutral) people would say that those who rent would be more likely to have this best case.
Exactly. now before you jump ..let me say that this may not be applicable to you. but most of the people that I know of, who have very young kids ( 1 - 5/6 year olds) ..buying a house was a wrong decision. (and common sense says the same thing). Because they bought the house - either they had to slog extra or take up 2 jobs and/or spouse has to work. some of them had a baby sitter ..who would put the kid in front of the TV all day. some of the kids are/were at home all day with their mother (but no friends) and hence they were lonely. (wife does not know how to drive or only one car) ..some of the luckier ones were the ones who could afford to put them in all day daycare
(but in this case ..kid hardly knows his parents well). now ofcourse there are some exceptions --where the sub-division of houses have lot of likeminded people / kids of same age and hence the kids have friends.
in my humble opinion ..the best case is where a mother takes care of the son as long as possible and at the same time the kid plays with other kids of same age ..(there are definitely many exceptions) ...and most (neutral) people would say that those who rent would be more likely to have this best case.
No comments:
Post a Comment