sc3
07-14 10:35 AM
There is a lot of FUD being spread around this thread. Let me try to dispel one.
1: Reverting rollover will only benefit EB3-ROW.
WRONG!!. As stated in other threads the spillovers are used on whoever has been waiting the longest. That is the guiding principle that is allowing EB2-I getting the GCs ahead of China. If not it was high time the Chinese priority date becomes current. If we revert back the spill-over utilization, whoever has been waiting the longest, gets the GC first. So stop your FUD.
People dont get sidetracked by the nay-sayers. If you would like to write to anyone, do write. If not anything else, we will at least get to hear back from the people whom we wrote to.
People who are saying "IV does not support it, do dont do it". Excuse me, IV does not run our lives. If we want to help ourselves, we ought to be able to do it. Yes, we should not use IV's name without its authorization, that is wrong.
People who say, I am EB3, but I think EB2s are right (in the sense that they are more entitled, they need to get the visas ahead of us etc. etc), good for you, but dont pull down those who don't agree with you. We have a brain to think for ourselves.
1: Reverting rollover will only benefit EB3-ROW.
WRONG!!. As stated in other threads the spillovers are used on whoever has been waiting the longest. That is the guiding principle that is allowing EB2-I getting the GCs ahead of China. If not it was high time the Chinese priority date becomes current. If we revert back the spill-over utilization, whoever has been waiting the longest, gets the GC first. So stop your FUD.
People dont get sidetracked by the nay-sayers. If you would like to write to anyone, do write. If not anything else, we will at least get to hear back from the people whom we wrote to.
People who are saying "IV does not support it, do dont do it". Excuse me, IV does not run our lives. If we want to help ourselves, we ought to be able to do it. Yes, we should not use IV's name without its authorization, that is wrong.
People who say, I am EB3, but I think EB2s are right (in the sense that they are more entitled, they need to get the visas ahead of us etc. etc), good for you, but dont pull down those who don't agree with you. We have a brain to think for ourselves.
wallpaper Justin Bieber#39;s Fans Get Angry
SunnySurya
08-05 04:08 PM
You seem to be a rational person. You points are compelling and thats why we need to take some legal opinion on it.
This does not apply. As long as BS+5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience is ok for EB-2, the priority date recapture is as per law.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
This does not apply. As long as BS+5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience is ok for EB-2, the priority date recapture is as per law.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
thatwillbeit
10-03 12:36 PM
Excellent post dtekkedil
You reiterate exactly what I have in my mind
You reiterate exactly what I have in my mind
2011 Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
kartikiran
06-23 05:34 PM
vivid_bharti, living in your own space is a pleasure only if we know we are allowed to stay here permanently. As long as we all wait for our green cards, it is never a pleasure. We will be concerned about what happens to our job, related to it with our H1, 485 etc. It is never a pleasure as long as we wait for green cards. Rent or Buy, does not matter.
Just my two cents. If you found this message useful, please join your respective state chapters, if you still have not.
Even a tiny ant understands grassroots level approach when it builds the mass by joining each other while looking for food. Meanwhile, we are not able to join hands to get our problems resolved. IV Core is willing to provide directions, but we need to trust each other and first join hands locally to make a nationwide dent.
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
Just my two cents. If you found this message useful, please join your respective state chapters, if you still have not.
Even a tiny ant understands grassroots level approach when it builds the mass by joining each other while looking for food. Meanwhile, we are not able to join hands to get our problems resolved. IV Core is willing to provide directions, but we need to trust each other and first join hands locally to make a nationwide dent.
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
more...
gcdreamer05
08-05 05:04 PM
A man goes skydiving. After a fantastic free fall he pulls the rip cord to open his parachute but nothing happens. He tries everything but can't get it open.
Just then another man flies by him, going UP. The skydiver yells, "Hey, you know anything about parachutes?" The man replies, "No, you know anything about gas stoves?"
ha ha ha cannot stop replying for me the guy going up is EB2 and the guy going down is EB3, unfortunately im going down...... :p
Just then another man flies by him, going UP. The skydiver yells, "Hey, you know anything about parachutes?" The man replies, "No, you know anything about gas stoves?"
ha ha ha cannot stop replying for me the guy going up is EB2 and the guy going down is EB3, unfortunately im going down...... :p
Macaca
02-18 01:11 PM
Mickey Goes to Washington (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302837.html) Lobbyists for America's richest mouse set out to persuade Congress to scare up $200 million to promote U.S. tourist destinations By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | WP, Feb 17
more...
boldm28
01-29 02:54 PM
That is surely amnesia. What to say, one of my desi coworker who who got his citizenship recently has started "Why we need more people" . When asked about his case, "mine was different, because of y2k etc there were great demand around 1999-2000".
IT HAPPENS ONLY in INDIA(N) ORIGIN PEOPLE
IT HAPPENS ONLY in INDIA(N) ORIGIN PEOPLE
2010 May 27, 2011. Justin Bieber
xyzgc
12-31 12:55 PM
For folks who are not advocating war and instead recommend improving internal security only - India has too many porous borders, it won't stop the terrorists from coming in, one reason is because they haven't left, they are still at large in India. They have simply disappeared within the country.
Internal security needs great improvements but even there our administration is not taking many active steps.
Cracking down on these terrorists like Lashkar will generate counter terror and will slow the terrorists down. Whether this is done using open air-strikes or via covert operations is a matter best decided by our defence think tank.
If India chooses not to react at all today, there will be another terrorist bombing tomorrow. One day, we will be forced to react, we cannot escape from the realities.
Pakistan is a big joke anyways without an industrial backbone, living off aids and dancing like a puppet to its American master because aid always comes with strings attached to it.
China has surpassed everyone, India has created a place but Pakis are far behind.
But that is not the reason a thread like this is alive or threads like these keep cropping up, we don't want to worry about Pakistan, we just want to foil the next terrorist attack.
Internal security needs great improvements but even there our administration is not taking many active steps.
Cracking down on these terrorists like Lashkar will generate counter terror and will slow the terrorists down. Whether this is done using open air-strikes or via covert operations is a matter best decided by our defence think tank.
If India chooses not to react at all today, there will be another terrorist bombing tomorrow. One day, we will be forced to react, we cannot escape from the realities.
Pakistan is a big joke anyways without an industrial backbone, living off aids and dancing like a puppet to its American master because aid always comes with strings attached to it.
China has surpassed everyone, India has created a place but Pakis are far behind.
But that is not the reason a thread like this is alive or threads like these keep cropping up, we don't want to worry about Pakistan, we just want to foil the next terrorist attack.
more...
Marphad
03-26 05:31 PM
Does this mean that H1B is also location specific?
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
hair Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
more...
javadeveloper
08-03 08:58 PM
Hi Unitednations,
My last entry into US is 15th Dec 2003 and I have around 200 days without my payslips and my w2 for 2004 also shows less amount.I applied my 485 in July 2007 , what are the chances for my 485 approval.Please suggest me , are there any options left for me ??
Thanks in advance
My last entry into US is 15th Dec 2003 and I have around 200 days without my payslips and my w2 for 2004 also shows less amount.I applied my 485 in July 2007 , what are the chances for my 485 approval.Please suggest me , are there any options left for me ??
Thanks in advance
hot Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
Macaca
12-29 08:19 PM
Troubling China-India ties (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101229bc.html) By Brahma Chellaney | Japan Times
The already fraught China-India relationship appears headed for more turbulent times as a result of the two giants' failure to make progress on resolving any of the issues that divide them. Earlier this month, during the first visit in more than four years of a Chinese leader to India, the two sides decided to kick all contentious issues down the road. Instead, Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to expand bilateral trade by two-thirds over the next five years.
But the trade relationship is anything but flattering for India, which is largely exporting primary commodities to China and importing finished products, as if it were the raw-material appendage of a neocolonial Chinese economy. To make matters worse, India confronts a ballooning trade deficit with China and the dumping of Chinese goods that is systematically killing local manufacturing.
The focus on trade even as political disputes fester only plays into the Chinese agenda to gain bigger commercial benefits in India while being free to inflict greater strategic wounds on that country.
India-China relations have entered a particularly frosty spell, with New Delhi's warming relationship with Washington emboldening Beijing to up the ante through border provocations, resurrection of its long-dormant claim to the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and diplomatic needling. After initially seeking greater cooperation to help dissuade New Delhi from moving closer to the U.S., Beijing shifted to a more-coercive approach following the mid-2005 U.S.-India defense framework agreement and nuclear deal.
Last year relations sank to their lowest political point in more than two decades when Beijing unleashed a psychological war, employing its state-run media and nationalistic Web sites to warn of another armed conflict. The coarse rhetoric of the period leading up to the 1962 Chinese military attack also returned, with the Chinese Communist Party's broadsheet, People's Daily, for example, berating India for "recklessness and arrogance" and asking it to weigh "the consequences of a potential confrontation with China."
Since then, Beijing has picked territorial fights with other neighbors as well, kindling fears of an expansionist China across Asia.
The only area where India-China relations have thrived is commerce. But the rapidly growing trade, far from helping to turn the page on old rifts, has been accompanied by greater Sino-Indian geopolitical rivalry and military tensions, resulting in India beefing up defenses. Tibet remains at the core of the Sino-Indian divide. While Chinese damming of international rivers has helped link water with land disputes, the 30-year-long negotiations to settle territorial feuds have hit a wall and gone off on a tangent.
Little surprise a 20-fold increase in trade in the past decade to $60 billion has yielded a more muscular Chinese policy. In fact, the more China's trade surplus with India has swelled � jumping from $2 billion in 2002 to almost $20 billion this year � the greater has been its condescension toward India.
Trade in today's market-driven world is not constrained by political disputes or even strained ties, unless artificial political barriers have been erected, such as through sanctions. The China-India relations actually demonstrate that booming trade is no guarantee of moderation or restraint between states. Unless estranged neighbors fix their political relations, economics alone will not be enough to create good will or stabilize their relationship.
Yet ignoring that lesson, China and India have left their political rows to future diplomacy to clear up, with Wen bluntly stating that sorting out the border disputes "will take a fairly long period of time." On the eve of his visit, Zhang Yan, the Chinese ambassador to India, publicly acknowledged that, "China-India relations are very fragile and very easy to be damaged and very difficult to repair."
Even as old rifts remain, new issues are roiling relations, including Chinese strategic projects and military presence in Pakistani-held Kashmir and a new policy by China (which occupies one-fifth of the original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir) to depict the Indian-administered portion of that state as de facto independent. It thus has been issuing visas to residents there on a separate leaf, not on their Indian passport. It also has stopped counting its 1,600-km border with Indian Kashmir as part of the frontier it shares with India.
In less than five years, China has gone from reviving the Arunachal Pradesh card to honing the Kashmir card against India. Thanks to China's growing strategic footprint in Pakistani-held Kashmir, India now faces Chinese troops on both flanks of its portion of Kashmir. Indeed, the deepening China-Pakistan nexus presents India with a two-front theater in the event of a war with either country.
China is unwilling to accept the territorial status quo, or enter into a river waters-sharing treaty as India has done with downriver Bangladesh and Pakistan. Yet it wants to focus relations increasingly on commerce, even pushing for a free-trade agreement. With the Western and Japanese markets racked by economic troubles, the Chinese export juggernaut needs a larger market share in India, the world's second fastest-growing economy.
But the current lopsided trade pattern � presenting a rising India as an African-style raw material source � is just not sustainable. China's proven iron-ore deposits, according to various international estimates, are more than 2 1/2 times that of India. Yet China is conserving its own reserves and importing iron ore in a major way from India, to which, in return, it exports value-added steel products. As India ramps up its own steel-producing capacity over the next five years, China will have dwindling access to Indian iron ore.
At present, China maintains nontrade barriers and other mechanisms that keep out higher-value Indian exports, such as information technology and pharmaceutical products; it exports to India double of what it imports in value; it continues to blithely undercut Indian manufacturing despite a record number of antidumping cases against it by India in the World Trade Organization; and its foreign direct investment in India is so minuscule ($52 million in the past decade) as to be undetectable. Such ties amount to lose-lose for India and win-win for China.
As if to underline that such unequal commerce cannot override political concerns, India has refused to reaffirm its support for Beijing's sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan. India had been periodically renewing its commitment to a "one China" policy, even as Beijing not only declined to make a reciprocal one-India pledge. But in a sign of the growing strains in ties, Wen left for his country's "all-weather" ally, Pakistan, with a joint communique in which India's one-China commitment was conspicuously missing.
Growing Chinese provocations have left New Delhi with little choice but to play hardball with Beijing.
Brahma Chellaney is the author of "Asian Juggernaut" (HarperCollins USA, 2010).
The already fraught China-India relationship appears headed for more turbulent times as a result of the two giants' failure to make progress on resolving any of the issues that divide them. Earlier this month, during the first visit in more than four years of a Chinese leader to India, the two sides decided to kick all contentious issues down the road. Instead, Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to expand bilateral trade by two-thirds over the next five years.
But the trade relationship is anything but flattering for India, which is largely exporting primary commodities to China and importing finished products, as if it were the raw-material appendage of a neocolonial Chinese economy. To make matters worse, India confronts a ballooning trade deficit with China and the dumping of Chinese goods that is systematically killing local manufacturing.
The focus on trade even as political disputes fester only plays into the Chinese agenda to gain bigger commercial benefits in India while being free to inflict greater strategic wounds on that country.
India-China relations have entered a particularly frosty spell, with New Delhi's warming relationship with Washington emboldening Beijing to up the ante through border provocations, resurrection of its long-dormant claim to the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and diplomatic needling. After initially seeking greater cooperation to help dissuade New Delhi from moving closer to the U.S., Beijing shifted to a more-coercive approach following the mid-2005 U.S.-India defense framework agreement and nuclear deal.
Last year relations sank to their lowest political point in more than two decades when Beijing unleashed a psychological war, employing its state-run media and nationalistic Web sites to warn of another armed conflict. The coarse rhetoric of the period leading up to the 1962 Chinese military attack also returned, with the Chinese Communist Party's broadsheet, People's Daily, for example, berating India for "recklessness and arrogance" and asking it to weigh "the consequences of a potential confrontation with China."
Since then, Beijing has picked territorial fights with other neighbors as well, kindling fears of an expansionist China across Asia.
The only area where India-China relations have thrived is commerce. But the rapidly growing trade, far from helping to turn the page on old rifts, has been accompanied by greater Sino-Indian geopolitical rivalry and military tensions, resulting in India beefing up defenses. Tibet remains at the core of the Sino-Indian divide. While Chinese damming of international rivers has helped link water with land disputes, the 30-year-long negotiations to settle territorial feuds have hit a wall and gone off on a tangent.
Little surprise a 20-fold increase in trade in the past decade to $60 billion has yielded a more muscular Chinese policy. In fact, the more China's trade surplus with India has swelled � jumping from $2 billion in 2002 to almost $20 billion this year � the greater has been its condescension toward India.
Trade in today's market-driven world is not constrained by political disputes or even strained ties, unless artificial political barriers have been erected, such as through sanctions. The China-India relations actually demonstrate that booming trade is no guarantee of moderation or restraint between states. Unless estranged neighbors fix their political relations, economics alone will not be enough to create good will or stabilize their relationship.
Yet ignoring that lesson, China and India have left their political rows to future diplomacy to clear up, with Wen bluntly stating that sorting out the border disputes "will take a fairly long period of time." On the eve of his visit, Zhang Yan, the Chinese ambassador to India, publicly acknowledged that, "China-India relations are very fragile and very easy to be damaged and very difficult to repair."
Even as old rifts remain, new issues are roiling relations, including Chinese strategic projects and military presence in Pakistani-held Kashmir and a new policy by China (which occupies one-fifth of the original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir) to depict the Indian-administered portion of that state as de facto independent. It thus has been issuing visas to residents there on a separate leaf, not on their Indian passport. It also has stopped counting its 1,600-km border with Indian Kashmir as part of the frontier it shares with India.
In less than five years, China has gone from reviving the Arunachal Pradesh card to honing the Kashmir card against India. Thanks to China's growing strategic footprint in Pakistani-held Kashmir, India now faces Chinese troops on both flanks of its portion of Kashmir. Indeed, the deepening China-Pakistan nexus presents India with a two-front theater in the event of a war with either country.
China is unwilling to accept the territorial status quo, or enter into a river waters-sharing treaty as India has done with downriver Bangladesh and Pakistan. Yet it wants to focus relations increasingly on commerce, even pushing for a free-trade agreement. With the Western and Japanese markets racked by economic troubles, the Chinese export juggernaut needs a larger market share in India, the world's second fastest-growing economy.
But the current lopsided trade pattern � presenting a rising India as an African-style raw material source � is just not sustainable. China's proven iron-ore deposits, according to various international estimates, are more than 2 1/2 times that of India. Yet China is conserving its own reserves and importing iron ore in a major way from India, to which, in return, it exports value-added steel products. As India ramps up its own steel-producing capacity over the next five years, China will have dwindling access to Indian iron ore.
At present, China maintains nontrade barriers and other mechanisms that keep out higher-value Indian exports, such as information technology and pharmaceutical products; it exports to India double of what it imports in value; it continues to blithely undercut Indian manufacturing despite a record number of antidumping cases against it by India in the World Trade Organization; and its foreign direct investment in India is so minuscule ($52 million in the past decade) as to be undetectable. Such ties amount to lose-lose for India and win-win for China.
As if to underline that such unequal commerce cannot override political concerns, India has refused to reaffirm its support for Beijing's sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan. India had been periodically renewing its commitment to a "one China" policy, even as Beijing not only declined to make a reciprocal one-India pledge. But in a sign of the growing strains in ties, Wen left for his country's "all-weather" ally, Pakistan, with a joint communique in which India's one-China commitment was conspicuously missing.
Growing Chinese provocations have left New Delhi with little choice but to play hardball with Beijing.
Brahma Chellaney is the author of "Asian Juggernaut" (HarperCollins USA, 2010).
more...
house Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
2008FebEb2
08-05 01:35 PM
I a EB2-I with PD 2008 Feb.
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
tattoo Selena Gomez-Justin Bieber
gapala
06-23 01:52 PM
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
\
Yeah sure! Based on your calc skills, people will get under water in no time.. Did you consider the part of principal at all in your calc? 23000 a year and end up at 8K ????
Based on my calc, your monthly payment will be somewhere around $2750 for a 400K loan at that rate. Do the math that makes it 2750 x 12 = 33000 and your 666 will become 1500 now :). Now add all the other stuff such as HOA, Maintenance, property tax, closing cost and what not... to derive the per month cost for first year
Credits are one time.. how about next year and there after??
Unbelievable!
\
Yeah sure! Based on your calc skills, people will get under water in no time.. Did you consider the part of principal at all in your calc? 23000 a year and end up at 8K ????
Based on my calc, your monthly payment will be somewhere around $2750 for a 400K loan at that rate. Do the math that makes it 2750 x 12 = 33000 and your 666 will become 1500 now :). Now add all the other stuff such as HOA, Maintenance, property tax, closing cost and what not... to derive the per month cost for first year
Credits are one time.. how about next year and there after??
Unbelievable!
more...
pictures justin bieber and selena gomez
jonty_11
08-02 12:07 PM
Possibly.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
I agree...with UN..however ...their laggardness in turn is also playing with the system...unfortunately...there is no one to take them to task...
Only when they managed something like July VB fiasco ...did it raise eyebrows.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
I agree...with UN..however ...their laggardness in turn is also playing with the system...unfortunately...there is no one to take them to task...
Only when they managed something like July VB fiasco ...did it raise eyebrows.
dresses Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
javadeveloper
07-19 07:33 PM
Hello unitednations,
Can you please comment on my case , pls look at post#140 or http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=124370&postcount=140
I appreciate your help.
Can you please comment on my case , pls look at post#140 or http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=124370&postcount=140
I appreciate your help.
more...
makeup 2010 Justin Bieber and Selena
Macaca
07-08 09:29 AM
googled it and found the link..it might be helpful to many folks..
http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
This ia an Aug 2001 report. Hope it is current!
Is it authentic if written by lawyers? Thanks
http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
This ia an Aug 2001 report. Hope it is current!
Is it authentic if written by lawyers? Thanks
girlfriend Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
NKR
07-14 03:52 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess about 30 to 35K (out of 40K) visas goes to EB2 for both India and china. However in Eb3 both In and China gets 3K each. Just compare 30K vs 3k.
If 3000 per year for EB3 had set the availability date to 2001, shouldn�t have 30K for EB2 made it current long ago?. If India and China get about 30K visas per year my PD of early 2004 would have been current long ago. So there is something wrong in your logic there.
Your supply and demand theory for EB3 I could be true.
I guess about 30 to 35K (out of 40K) visas goes to EB2 for both India and china. However in Eb3 both In and China gets 3K each. Just compare 30K vs 3k.
If 3000 per year for EB3 had set the availability date to 2001, shouldn�t have 30K for EB2 made it current long ago?. If India and China get about 30K visas per year my PD of early 2004 would have been current long ago. So there is something wrong in your logic there.
Your supply and demand theory for EB3 I could be true.
hairstyles Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
485Mbe4001
10-01 01:23 PM
For the record the raising of the FDIC limit was proposed by House Minority Whip Roy Blunt and not Obama. One article spinned it to show that Obama proposed it and then that news got the most clicks and now everyone says that he proposed the limit.
After the bail-out bill failed in the House, Obama immediately posted a response reassuring Americans and investors that the leaders will come up with another soon.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
After the bail-out bill failed in the House, Obama immediately posted a response reassuring Americans and investors that the leaders will come up with another soon.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
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.
logiclife
04-07 12:30 AM
Guys,
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий