eb2_mumbai
07-14 11:22 AM
If that letter is modifed to present Eb3 case in factually correct way I am sure every one will support it. In its original form it is misleading. Comparing to Eb2 is an unacceptable way ( to justify Eb3). This is causing this carnage on the forum. I will request you to post your template.
I did not mention anything like that. Just a request to allocate some Visa Numbers to EB-3 (India), which is retrogressed in 2001 since many years. I modified that format letter.
I did not mention anything like that. Just a request to allocate some Visa Numbers to EB-3 (India), which is retrogressed in 2001 since many years. I modified that format letter.
wallpaper English amp; American Golden
gondalguru
07-08 08:00 PM
Assuming your husband is here from 2000, they are asking for 7 years, i.e. 12 * 7 = 84 months of paystubs? This is ridiculous. How many people keep paystubs from 7 years ago? Infact in those days paystubs used to have their social security numbers on them, they should be shredded, atleast that's the common advice.
My pay stub still has SSN.
Its always good to keep all the paystubs / w2/ tax returns / employment verifications letter / what ever other evidences you have.. especially employment based GC applicants
My pay stub still has SSN.
Its always good to keep all the paystubs / w2/ tax returns / employment verifications letter / what ever other evidences you have.. especially employment based GC applicants
Marphad
01-09 01:00 PM
Read this: especially para with title: Land grievance against Indian Muslims
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_041208.htm
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_041208.htm
2011 Keepsake Golden Retriever Dog
jayleno
08-05 02:44 PM
Guys,
Please stop this sick discussion. Do not allow this kind of divisive tactics to work on us.
Please stop this sick discussion. Do not allow this kind of divisive tactics to work on us.
more...
sledge_hammer
03-24 04:11 PM
>>>>Why don't you give me the proof that ALL consulting companies are not complying.
The fact that most of the companies that USCIS is coming after are desi consulting companies proves that MOST desi comapanies are corrupt. There you have your proof.
And I have not seenn any non-desi company use the "bench". Since you support your desi company, tell me how many non desi consulting companies don't pay their employees on bench?
Answer the above question before calling me ignorant.
P.S: And when did I say that non desi consulting companies don't have to comply with USCIS rules???
1. Why don't you give me the proof that ALL consulting companies are not complying. You are the one who is making the argument. Do you have any statistics to prove that ? Do you know all the consulting companies in US ? Do you know all the companies that directly hire H1 ? Do you know their compliance statistics ?
2. Did I say any of these are legal ? If a company applies for H1B, the company has to comply with the requirements of the law. It is that simple. It doesn't matter whether it is a consulting company or a direct placement.
The fact that most of the companies that USCIS is coming after are desi consulting companies proves that MOST desi comapanies are corrupt. There you have your proof.
And I have not seenn any non-desi company use the "bench". Since you support your desi company, tell me how many non desi consulting companies don't pay their employees on bench?
Answer the above question before calling me ignorant.
P.S: And when did I say that non desi consulting companies don't have to comply with USCIS rules???
1. Why don't you give me the proof that ALL consulting companies are not complying. You are the one who is making the argument. Do you have any statistics to prove that ? Do you know all the consulting companies in US ? Do you know all the companies that directly hire H1 ? Do you know their compliance statistics ?
2. Did I say any of these are legal ? If a company applies for H1B, the company has to comply with the requirements of the law. It is that simple. It doesn't matter whether it is a consulting company or a direct placement.
riva2005
04-08 11:43 PM
Again, IEEE went out of its way to get extra H1Bs for US-educated students. That alone wipes out your arguments because these H1Bs are for foreigners and these people sure will increase competition for people born here. IEEE is not only for meaningful reform, they have the power to do what they want.
Just because they have a position paper and a pdf file saying that they support US educated immigrants doesnt mean they do that.
If IEEE-USA really cared about US educated students, they would have put in a provision to raise the cap for US masters degree holders from 20,000 to 40,000. Did they do that in this bill? NO.
What created the 20,000 H1B visas for US educated students is lobbying by US universities. They saw a drop in student enrollment due to shortage of H1 visas in 2002 and 2003. Read the bureau of Immigration stats report to verify that drop in F1 visa demand from India and China in the early 2000s. Now its back up.
Ron Hira and IEEE-USA have systematically worked for nearly 10 years to eliminate H1B program. However, they are doing it in a way that makes them look like reasonable people and helps them mask their xenophobic and protectionist attitude.
This bill has been pretty much authored by xenophobes of IEEE-USA. If you look at the IEEE-USA website and what Sen. Grassley has been saying over the years, it has an uncanny similarity. Last year, IEEE-USA's insistence caused Sen. Grassley to put amendment in Jud committee to remove the provision of EAD for L1 spouses. Look at IEEE-USA's website and you will find remarkably similar material. Whether it was a justified and fair amendment, its a different issue.
Lately, IEEE-USA has been against H1B employees who go back to India and China. Some time ago, they were saying "When does temporary end and permenant begin"...meaning, what part of "Temporary" do H1B "temporary non-immigrant" workers do not understand. They were against H1B employees becoming permenant by seeking Greencards and wanted them to go back after 6 years.
Then they started opposing people who come here and go back because that is supposed to facilitate outsourcing. And IEEE-USA, like Lou Dobbs, hates outsourcing. So now they are unhappy even if H1B workers come here for 3-6 years and go back.
So in a nutshell, they(IEEE-USA) are against H1B employees if they :
1. Come here and stay here on GC.
2. Come here and go back.
3. Never come here but work for US companies and enable outsourcing.
So the people who oppose all 3 of the above...like RON HIRA of IEEE-USA basically does not want us to exist in hi-tech work. Probably they would want all Indian and Chinese engineers to work in fields and pick cotton.
Similary, Chuck Grassley has no problem with giving amnesty to illegals if they are agricultural workers. But in general he doesnt want too much immigration. So immigration is fine, as long as the brown people dont do white people's job. Immigration is good as long as brown people stick their brown asses in fieds picking cotton and stay away from that keyboard so that people like Ron Hira and his colleagues can get their 1990s back and write 4 lines of code per week and make $100,000 a year.
Rimzhim, this whole public policy thing is really not your cup of tea. You go and stick to whatever it is that you are doing and let the core group handle this issue. This elitist attitude of "I am masters, I am Ph.D" is splinting apart this organization and you are too obtuse to understand the twisted ways of IEEE-USA.
Just because they have a position paper and a pdf file saying that they support US educated immigrants doesnt mean they do that.
If IEEE-USA really cared about US educated students, they would have put in a provision to raise the cap for US masters degree holders from 20,000 to 40,000. Did they do that in this bill? NO.
What created the 20,000 H1B visas for US educated students is lobbying by US universities. They saw a drop in student enrollment due to shortage of H1 visas in 2002 and 2003. Read the bureau of Immigration stats report to verify that drop in F1 visa demand from India and China in the early 2000s. Now its back up.
Ron Hira and IEEE-USA have systematically worked for nearly 10 years to eliminate H1B program. However, they are doing it in a way that makes them look like reasonable people and helps them mask their xenophobic and protectionist attitude.
This bill has been pretty much authored by xenophobes of IEEE-USA. If you look at the IEEE-USA website and what Sen. Grassley has been saying over the years, it has an uncanny similarity. Last year, IEEE-USA's insistence caused Sen. Grassley to put amendment in Jud committee to remove the provision of EAD for L1 spouses. Look at IEEE-USA's website and you will find remarkably similar material. Whether it was a justified and fair amendment, its a different issue.
Lately, IEEE-USA has been against H1B employees who go back to India and China. Some time ago, they were saying "When does temporary end and permenant begin"...meaning, what part of "Temporary" do H1B "temporary non-immigrant" workers do not understand. They were against H1B employees becoming permenant by seeking Greencards and wanted them to go back after 6 years.
Then they started opposing people who come here and go back because that is supposed to facilitate outsourcing. And IEEE-USA, like Lou Dobbs, hates outsourcing. So now they are unhappy even if H1B workers come here for 3-6 years and go back.
So in a nutshell, they(IEEE-USA) are against H1B employees if they :
1. Come here and stay here on GC.
2. Come here and go back.
3. Never come here but work for US companies and enable outsourcing.
So the people who oppose all 3 of the above...like RON HIRA of IEEE-USA basically does not want us to exist in hi-tech work. Probably they would want all Indian and Chinese engineers to work in fields and pick cotton.
Similary, Chuck Grassley has no problem with giving amnesty to illegals if they are agricultural workers. But in general he doesnt want too much immigration. So immigration is fine, as long as the brown people dont do white people's job. Immigration is good as long as brown people stick their brown asses in fieds picking cotton and stay away from that keyboard so that people like Ron Hira and his colleagues can get their 1990s back and write 4 lines of code per week and make $100,000 a year.
Rimzhim, this whole public policy thing is really not your cup of tea. You go and stick to whatever it is that you are doing and let the core group handle this issue. This elitist attitude of "I am masters, I am Ph.D" is splinting apart this organization and you are too obtuse to understand the twisted ways of IEEE-USA.
more...
senthil1
04-08 07:34 PM
IBM and Oracle will survive without H1B as they will hire US workers and set back will be temporary for them. So this bill is targeting the Indian bodyshoppers who are running company just by H1b persons. This was expected for long time. If it is not happening now it is going to happen in a few years. We knew that hundreds of US companies went out of business after 2000 as they were not able to compete with Indian consulting companies because of rate.
What about professional services? Like IBM global services, Oracle consulting etc.... all these companies thrive on after sales customization and support based on professional services contract and there are thousands of h1b visa holders doing professional services. It is also outsourcing of a employee to a client implementing their system. Look at SAP, Siebel consultants, they are outsourced at client places for years together to finish implementations and their work locations are changed based on client's needs from time to time in between jobs - this is again a huge pool of H1bs.
I used to work fulltime for a company in their professional services group and travelled on the job to a lot of places. The company thrives on h1b resources for their high pressured jobs and they always bring in people from outside the country to do their jobs.
I think outsourcing employees to a different location is a part and parcel of H1b, and this bill is nailing exactly on that. It is aimed solely to purge out H1bs from the country.
So all said and done, we may now go down based on a racially motivated bill. I am not sure what it takes to educate the law makers, I would like to see the senior personnel at IV and more analysts to look into what can be done on this bill.
What about professional services? Like IBM global services, Oracle consulting etc.... all these companies thrive on after sales customization and support based on professional services contract and there are thousands of h1b visa holders doing professional services. It is also outsourcing of a employee to a client implementing their system. Look at SAP, Siebel consultants, they are outsourced at client places for years together to finish implementations and their work locations are changed based on client's needs from time to time in between jobs - this is again a huge pool of H1bs.
I used to work fulltime for a company in their professional services group and travelled on the job to a lot of places. The company thrives on h1b resources for their high pressured jobs and they always bring in people from outside the country to do their jobs.
I think outsourcing employees to a different location is a part and parcel of H1b, and this bill is nailing exactly on that. It is aimed solely to purge out H1bs from the country.
So all said and done, we may now go down based on a racially motivated bill. I am not sure what it takes to educate the law makers, I would like to see the senior personnel at IV and more analysts to look into what can be done on this bill.
2010 Wonderful Golden Retriever
hiralal
06-06 10:58 PM
to buy another house (if it is not distress property / from auction) just to put it on rent is stupidity ..risk is good if it is calculated ..to take foolish risk is foolishness ..anyway that is me. In this Country land is virtually unlimited !!! demand is low (see immigration ..they give majority GC's to people when they are 50 - 60 years old) and those who are young have smaller families because of high cost of living, way of living.
to buy a house to put it on rent is big loss as there are millions of houses already competing for renters
ONE more reason for those who are on H1/ EAD is that 90% of then job postings on DICE and other places ask for only citizens or GC holders.
to buy a house to put it on rent is big loss as there are millions of houses already competing for renters
ONE more reason for those who are on H1/ EAD is that 90% of then job postings on DICE and other places ask for only citizens or GC holders.
more...
file485
07-09 12:07 PM
UN..after I read your story..
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
hair Golden Retrievers were first
validIV
06-25 01:46 PM
I couldn't agree more. My first home is almost fully paid off. Peace of mind is a great thing.
I will be happy owning one home. And hope to repay it off quickly so i dont have any BANK to answer to. Having a peace of mind that one day when i pay off the home nobody can kick me off my home for any reason is PRICELESS to me.
It's not for my grandkids. Its for my wife and my kids when I retire.
Owning 10 homes so that you can donate to your grandkids may be PRICELESS to you. I wish you the best.
I will be happy owning one home. And hope to repay it off quickly so i dont have any BANK to answer to. Having a peace of mind that one day when i pay off the home nobody can kick me off my home for any reason is PRICELESS to me.
It's not for my grandkids. Its for my wife and my kids when I retire.
Owning 10 homes so that you can donate to your grandkids may be PRICELESS to you. I wish you the best.
more...
sk2006
06-05 02:53 PM
Totally agree ! To add, the decision to buy a house for people like us (who are stuck in this muck) also depends on the life situation you are in. Meaning, the decision to buy a house inspite of the uncertainity was over-weighed by the fact that my kids need to enjoy certain things. Watching them play with kids of their age in the neighborhood, riding a bicycle or playing with the water sprinkler while I sip my beer is priceless.
Yeah, but why do you have to BUY that house to live in it if in the same neighbor hood same or similar house can be rented at much lower price?
Kids can still play and enjoy the sprinklers and you can still enjoy your beer. Isn't it?
Infact we have attached a sense of pride in owning even if we can't afford it. I am not talking about you but in general. People bought 700K houses in 100K salary. And this is a VERY good salary but it still can't afford a 700K house!
Yeah, but why do you have to BUY that house to live in it if in the same neighbor hood same or similar house can be rented at much lower price?
Kids can still play and enjoy the sprinklers and you can still enjoy your beer. Isn't it?
Infact we have attached a sense of pride in owning even if we can't afford it. I am not talking about you but in general. People bought 700K houses in 100K salary. And this is a VERY good salary but it still can't afford a 700K house!
hot Golden Retriever
desi3933
08-05 04:55 PM
You seem to be a rational person. You points are compelling and that's why we need to take some legal opinion on it.
Thanks SunnySurya.
Personally, lawsuit against EB-2 eligibility due to BS+5years or against porting due to BS+5 is not a good idea.
Thanks SunnySurya.
Personally, lawsuit against EB-2 eligibility due to BS+5years or against porting due to BS+5 is not a good idea.
more...
house Cute Golden Retriever Puppy
Pineapple
12-24 03:21 PM
What a tiresome thread!!!
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
tattoo Golden Retriever puppy 2 weeks
abcdgc
12-27 02:02 AM
It is my reading that if India performs surgical strikes on the terrorist camps in Pakistan, Pakistan will not be able to do anything because according to Pakistan, there are no terrorist camps, so how can someone bomb a camp if that camp doesn't exist.
I think US has told Gilani and Zardari not to respond if India conducts 1-2 surgical strikes. But Kaayani wants to respond. That's why Musharraf is making public statements saying that - if India strikes, "Democratically elected" President & PM will take steps to respond. Musharraf is putting the onus to respond on Zardari and Gilani. They do not want to respond. But Kaayani will order a response anyways, without a go ahead from Zardari and Gilani. There is only 1 stading institution in Pakistan - its army. We have to dismatle Pakistani army and ISI, otherwise it will continue to breed & foster more terrorist.
I think US has told Gilani and Zardari not to respond if India conducts 1-2 surgical strikes. But Kaayani wants to respond. That's why Musharraf is making public statements saying that - if India strikes, "Democratically elected" President & PM will take steps to respond. Musharraf is putting the onus to respond on Zardari and Gilani. They do not want to respond. But Kaayani will order a response anyways, without a go ahead from Zardari and Gilani. There is only 1 stading institution in Pakistan - its army. We have to dismatle Pakistani army and ISI, otherwise it will continue to breed & foster more terrorist.
more...
pictures Golden Retriever Dog Royalty
GCwaitforever
07-15 07:06 AM
May be we should start an advisory service for H-1B immigrants on their rights, how to fight abusive employers etc ... Best way to go would be setting up a non-profit with initial discussions happening in a local community center hall (Church, Mosque, temple, public library, or even a local cafe). We could even recruit a kind-hearted lawyer on pro-bono basis. When we open chapters at every city where immigrant population is clustered, this will cover most of the immigrants.
We are wondering why IV is not getting enough members enrolling. Setting up this non-profit would be a step in brining activisism in EB immigrants and from then on, they will be readily participating in fighting for their rights. Then we would have a grassroot support organization. Any thoughts/comments, please let me know.
We are wondering why IV is not getting enough members enrolling. Setting up this non-profit would be a step in brining activisism in EB immigrants and from then on, they will be readily participating in fighting for their rights. Then we would have a grassroot support organization. Any thoughts/comments, please let me know.
dresses The Dogs. Golden Retriever
gccovet
08-05 04:10 PM
WOW!!!!!!!!!!Rolling_Flood will be ROFLOL!!!!!!
What a waste of time, folks!!!!
What a waste of time, folks!!!!
more...
makeup simba the golden retriever dog
pappu
03-25 11:58 PM
I am trying to upload a pdf file but keep getting error message.
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/temp/forum_attach/temporaryjob140denial.pdf
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/temp/forum_attach/temporaryjob140denial.pdf
girlfriend Tags: Golden Retriever
Beemar
12-29 12:01 AM
Sorry everybody. The war did not break out as I was anticipating. I thought Indian leaders have developed some spine. I should have known better.
India is no Israel. Israel launched a war on Gaza in retaliation for some rocket attacks which killed, well, zero Israelis. They at least know what the most effective defense is, its called offense.
India is no Israel. Israel launched a war on Gaza in retaliation for some rocket attacks which killed, well, zero Israelis. They at least know what the most effective defense is, its called offense.
hairstyles Golden Retriever Dog Lovers
validIV
06-23 03:25 PM
Yea your calculation is a little off. 400,000 financed @ 5% 30 year fixed is $2,148. Factor in your taxes and insurance in escrow thats a total of (approximately, im guessing for your area) $2,500 total. Plus your HOA of $250/month thats 2750 which sounds about right with gapala's calculation. Your closing costs, give or take should also be factored, approx. 10-30k.
So that comes to 33k/yoy in expenses. That may not be bad when your making six figure incomes or combined household incoming is 150K+, since 20k+ of interest is deductible yoy, but imo i wouldnt buy a 500k+ property unless there is some sort of income to bring down my monthly cost, like a rental unit.
Townhouses here in NY are very similar to condos so I'm assuming that its the same there. I personally would not pay 500k for something similar to a condo unless its in Manhattan. Just curious why not buy a house instead of a townhouse? Unless thats the norm in that area. I would prefer to take care of the house myself than pay maintenance and HoA dues. You learn a lot more and grow as a homeowner.
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
So that comes to 33k/yoy in expenses. That may not be bad when your making six figure incomes or combined household incoming is 150K+, since 20k+ of interest is deductible yoy, but imo i wouldnt buy a 500k+ property unless there is some sort of income to bring down my monthly cost, like a rental unit.
Townhouses here in NY are very similar to condos so I'm assuming that its the same there. I personally would not pay 500k for something similar to a condo unless its in Manhattan. Just curious why not buy a house instead of a townhouse? Unless thats the norm in that area. I would prefer to take care of the house myself than pay maintenance and HoA dues. You learn a lot more and grow as a homeowner.
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
Macaca
05-16 05:51 PM
Future Tense
Are the United States and China on a collision course? (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan)
By Aaron Friedberg | The New Republic
In October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers�with the United States�s financial system seemingly about to buckle and Washington in desperate need of cash to prevent a total economic collapse�a State Department official contacted his Chinese counterpart about China buying U.S. securities. To his surprise, the Chinese, who had previously displayed an insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasury bills, suddenly balked at lending a hand. The reason, the Chinese official said, was the recent announcement of an impending sale of U.S. armaments to Taiwan.
This not-so-subtle threat, detailed in a memo released by Wikileaks, turned out to be a bluff, but it signaled a striking shift in the tone and content of Chinese foreign policy. Over the course of the past two years, Beijing has adopted a more assertive posture in its dealings with Washington, as well as with many of America�s allies in Asia. Among other things, China has threatened for the first time to impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan; intensified its claims to virtually all of the resource-rich South China Sea; and conducted its largest-ever naval exercises in the Western Pacific.
America�s �China hands� have long attributed any tensions between the two countries to misunderstandings or readily correctable policy errors. But with the passage of time it has become increasingly apparent that the differences between China and the United States spring from deeply rooted sources and aren�t likely to be resolved anytime soon. Indeed, as recent events suggest, it appears that the two nations are in for a long, tense, perhaps even dangerous struggle. And, most disconcerting of all, it�s a struggle in which, at least for the moment, China seems to be gaining the upper hand.
If you look back over the last 2,500 years�from the days of Athens and Sparta through the cold war�there has inevitably been mistrust, rivalry, and often open conflict between leading global powers and rising states that seek to displace them. In these scenarios, the leading power has wanted to preserve its privileges, while fearing that emerging challengers would seek to overturn the international order that it dominates. Rising powers, for their part, chafe at hierarchies of influence that were put in place when they were relatively weak.
Much of the tension in today�s U.S.-China relationship is a reflection of this familiar dynamic. But this tension is exacerbated by an additional factor that has only sometimes been present in great power rivalries of the past: deep ideological differences. One often hears it said that, because China is no longer truly a communist country, ideology has ceased to be a factor in its relations with the United States. This misses the point. Today�s Chinese leaders may no longer be anti-capitalist Marxists but they govern as Leninists and, as such, are determined to preserve the Communist Party�s exclusive monopoly on political power. China�s rulers see the United States as intent on spreading its brand of democracy to every corner of the earth. For their part, the American people continue to eye with suspicion a regime they see as repressive and autocratic. Ideology may not be sufficient, in itself, to provoke conflict between the United States and China, but it aggravates and amplifies the geopolitical tensions between the two.
This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States. In contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, America�s strategy for dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to challenge America�s interests and those of our allies in Asia, while at the same time nudging China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will �tame� China by giving it a stake in the existing international order�and, over the long run, encourage the growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India).
China�s strategy for dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, China�s leaders recognized that the previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other. Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called �24 Character Strategy� was that China had little choice but to �hide its capabilities and bide its time.� That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power�economic, military, technological, and political.
Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Party�s grip on political power; it seeks, in effect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for this reason, China�s leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia, constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii.
Are the United States and China on a collision course? (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan)
By Aaron Friedberg | The New Republic
In October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers�with the United States�s financial system seemingly about to buckle and Washington in desperate need of cash to prevent a total economic collapse�a State Department official contacted his Chinese counterpart about China buying U.S. securities. To his surprise, the Chinese, who had previously displayed an insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasury bills, suddenly balked at lending a hand. The reason, the Chinese official said, was the recent announcement of an impending sale of U.S. armaments to Taiwan.
This not-so-subtle threat, detailed in a memo released by Wikileaks, turned out to be a bluff, but it signaled a striking shift in the tone and content of Chinese foreign policy. Over the course of the past two years, Beijing has adopted a more assertive posture in its dealings with Washington, as well as with many of America�s allies in Asia. Among other things, China has threatened for the first time to impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan; intensified its claims to virtually all of the resource-rich South China Sea; and conducted its largest-ever naval exercises in the Western Pacific.
America�s �China hands� have long attributed any tensions between the two countries to misunderstandings or readily correctable policy errors. But with the passage of time it has become increasingly apparent that the differences between China and the United States spring from deeply rooted sources and aren�t likely to be resolved anytime soon. Indeed, as recent events suggest, it appears that the two nations are in for a long, tense, perhaps even dangerous struggle. And, most disconcerting of all, it�s a struggle in which, at least for the moment, China seems to be gaining the upper hand.
If you look back over the last 2,500 years�from the days of Athens and Sparta through the cold war�there has inevitably been mistrust, rivalry, and often open conflict between leading global powers and rising states that seek to displace them. In these scenarios, the leading power has wanted to preserve its privileges, while fearing that emerging challengers would seek to overturn the international order that it dominates. Rising powers, for their part, chafe at hierarchies of influence that were put in place when they were relatively weak.
Much of the tension in today�s U.S.-China relationship is a reflection of this familiar dynamic. But this tension is exacerbated by an additional factor that has only sometimes been present in great power rivalries of the past: deep ideological differences. One often hears it said that, because China is no longer truly a communist country, ideology has ceased to be a factor in its relations with the United States. This misses the point. Today�s Chinese leaders may no longer be anti-capitalist Marxists but they govern as Leninists and, as such, are determined to preserve the Communist Party�s exclusive monopoly on political power. China�s rulers see the United States as intent on spreading its brand of democracy to every corner of the earth. For their part, the American people continue to eye with suspicion a regime they see as repressive and autocratic. Ideology may not be sufficient, in itself, to provoke conflict between the United States and China, but it aggravates and amplifies the geopolitical tensions between the two.
This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States. In contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, America�s strategy for dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to challenge America�s interests and those of our allies in Asia, while at the same time nudging China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will �tame� China by giving it a stake in the existing international order�and, over the long run, encourage the growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India).
China�s strategy for dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, China�s leaders recognized that the previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other. Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called �24 Character Strategy� was that China had little choice but to �hide its capabilities and bide its time.� That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power�economic, military, technological, and political.
Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Party�s grip on political power; it seeks, in effect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for this reason, China�s leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia, constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii.
unitednations
03-24 11:39 AM
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
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.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment