suavesandeep
06-25 11:35 AM
Sledge,
Nobody is saying that the world is coming to and end in 2 years.IMHO myself and many others would agree that long term buying a house makes sense. The question is does buying now if you haven't already bought your primary residential home make any sense.
From the current data, Do you think a guy who buys a house in 2009 would come ahead of somebody who would buys in 2011 when the housing market may have fully bottomed out ? I know its impossible to time the market. But all indicators to name a few below point that home prices should continue to decline.
Unemployment is still on the way up. We will cross 10% anytime soon is a given.
Excess housing inventory
Home prices are still above the trend line. Historically its common for the correction to swing even below the trend line before it stabilizes.
Again IMHO, If you haven't bought a home yet, Save so that you can make a bigger down payment (Own more of the house when you buy one) and check the market again mid 2010.
Giving your example.
Lets say guy buys in 2009, and another guy buys in 2011 (Assuming home prices would have further gone down using existing data points).. Who do you think would come ahead in 2019.
I agree with you 100%. These guys here are all getting worked up as if the world will come to an end in 2 years and it is unreasonable to think beyong 2011. A regular investor like us, someone w/ a job, one who saves in the bank, and/or dollar cost averages in a 401(K), should never think short term.
Let's see 10 years from now who will be in a better position - the guy who owned a home or a guy that is renting.
Of course, some guys will start complaining about GC, but then other posts here are claiming that regardless of GC, buying a house now is dissasterous.
Nobody is saying that the world is coming to and end in 2 years.IMHO myself and many others would agree that long term buying a house makes sense. The question is does buying now if you haven't already bought your primary residential home make any sense.
From the current data, Do you think a guy who buys a house in 2009 would come ahead of somebody who would buys in 2011 when the housing market may have fully bottomed out ? I know its impossible to time the market. But all indicators to name a few below point that home prices should continue to decline.
Unemployment is still on the way up. We will cross 10% anytime soon is a given.
Excess housing inventory
Home prices are still above the trend line. Historically its common for the correction to swing even below the trend line before it stabilizes.
Again IMHO, If you haven't bought a home yet, Save so that you can make a bigger down payment (Own more of the house when you buy one) and check the market again mid 2010.
Giving your example.
Lets say guy buys in 2009, and another guy buys in 2011 (Assuming home prices would have further gone down using existing data points).. Who do you think would come ahead in 2019.
I agree with you 100%. These guys here are all getting worked up as if the world will come to an end in 2 years and it is unreasonable to think beyong 2011. A regular investor like us, someone w/ a job, one who saves in the bank, and/or dollar cost averages in a 401(K), should never think short term.
Let's see 10 years from now who will be in a better position - the guy who owned a home or a guy that is renting.
Of course, some guys will start complaining about GC, but then other posts here are claiming that regardless of GC, buying a house now is dissasterous.
wallpaper Natalie Portman#39;s line of
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.
nk2006
09-29 05:10 PM
Whoever the president is - Obama or McCain - our/EB immigrants fate is more in the hands of congress.
I was just watching the outcome of financial bailout bill - it failed in the house despite having the support of current president and two presidential candidates. This is about the much hyped out bailout plan - the outcome of this bill for sure affects pretty much every american - this bill failed in house despite all the major leaders urging house members to pass it. This shows all politics are local. The reason for failure of this bill is its not that popular with people - opinion polls on the original bailout plan showed majority of people didnt like it and wanted to some changes, while the current bailout bill is different from it - still many of house reps are wary to vote in favor of it. Especially the reps who are up for tough election this November. They are concerned about their election and dont give a damn to their leader. I think it would be same for EB issues - we need to continue to lobby with congressmen and if possible push our EB only aspects in some bill (live visa recapture) because once our issues are combined with general immigration issue we will get run over for sure either by anti-immigrants or people like Durbin.
The next president might set his/her broad immigration policies but as always devil is in details and these details are set by congress. Also if you observe our opponent organizations and the way they concentrate more on congressional elections rather than presidential elections - it becomes apparent that from EB (and other) immigration laws point of view there may not be much change in impact whether Obama or McCain is president. From their broad immigration policies I am sure either Obama or McCain will sign of any bill that favor more GC numbers (or recaptured EB visas) for EB immigrants. Of course it can get complicated with amendments from likes of Durbin but based on the merit of our issue, I think more congressmen would be voting in favor of our measures. The key is getting our measures pushed into any relevant bills.
I was just watching the outcome of financial bailout bill - it failed in the house despite having the support of current president and two presidential candidates. This is about the much hyped out bailout plan - the outcome of this bill for sure affects pretty much every american - this bill failed in house despite all the major leaders urging house members to pass it. This shows all politics are local. The reason for failure of this bill is its not that popular with people - opinion polls on the original bailout plan showed majority of people didnt like it and wanted to some changes, while the current bailout bill is different from it - still many of house reps are wary to vote in favor of it. Especially the reps who are up for tough election this November. They are concerned about their election and dont give a damn to their leader. I think it would be same for EB issues - we need to continue to lobby with congressmen and if possible push our EB only aspects in some bill (live visa recapture) because once our issues are combined with general immigration issue we will get run over for sure either by anti-immigrants or people like Durbin.
The next president might set his/her broad immigration policies but as always devil is in details and these details are set by congress. Also if you observe our opponent organizations and the way they concentrate more on congressional elections rather than presidential elections - it becomes apparent that from EB (and other) immigration laws point of view there may not be much change in impact whether Obama or McCain is president. From their broad immigration policies I am sure either Obama or McCain will sign of any bill that favor more GC numbers (or recaptured EB visas) for EB immigrants. Of course it can get complicated with amendments from likes of Durbin but based on the merit of our issue, I think more congressmen would be voting in favor of our measures. The key is getting our measures pushed into any relevant bills.
2011 Actress Natalie Portman is an
nogc_noproblem
08-22 02:52 PM
Satan was complaining bitterly to God, "You made the world so that it was not fair, and you made it so that most people would have to struggle every day, fight against their innate wishes and desires, and deal with all sorts of losses, grief, disasters, and catastrophes. Yet people worship and adore you. People fight, get arrested, and cheat each other, and I get blamed, even when it is not my fault. Sure, I'm evil, but give me a break. Can't you do something to make them stop blaming me?"
And so God created lawyers.
And so God created lawyers.
more...
unitednations
03-24 02:47 AM
A lot of the list and questions that you are being asked is what department of labor asks when they are investigating possible h-1b violations. What they have asked you is usually in those types of investigations.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
nojoke
01-03 03:36 AM
Screw Dawood Ibrahim. He is the past.
What is important right now is to get hold of the masterminds of Bombay in a transparent and credible manner. That would be in the long term self-interest of Pakistan (and India, and the world).
Tomorrow the Bombay attack is old too. You are delusional and good making up reasons.:D:D:D:D:D
How about an apology for what your country men did as a first step? Then we will consider your advice about what we should do. You are so good at giving advice to people who suffered at your country men's(like don't start war etc) hands and yet you don't own any responsibility.
What is important right now is to get hold of the masterminds of Bombay in a transparent and credible manner. That would be in the long term self-interest of Pakistan (and India, and the world).
Tomorrow the Bombay attack is old too. You are delusional and good making up reasons.:D:D:D:D:D
How about an apology for what your country men did as a first step? Then we will consider your advice about what we should do. You are so good at giving advice to people who suffered at your country men's(like don't start war etc) hands and yet you don't own any responsibility.
more...
Macaca
05-27 05:26 PM
Immigration: You can't rely on E-Verify (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-arizona-20110527,0,7225123.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that permits local officials to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. The decision makes sense in principle but not in practice.
Under the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, business owners are required to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm if a person is authorized to work in this country. Employers must electronically check workers' names against databases kept by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Workers found to be ineligible have up to eight working days to straighten out the problem before employers would be required to fire them. If a company is found to have knowingly hired an undocumented worker once, it can have its licenses suspended; twice, the company may be shut down.
The problem with the Arizona statute is not that it penalizes employers who break the law. Businesses that hire undocumented immigrants should face fines or sanctions, as called for under current federal law (although many would disagree with the court's conclusion that states may impose such penalties). The problem is that the law relies on E-Verify, which isn't ready for prime time.
Until now, E-Verify has generally been used on a voluntary basis by employers because of concerns about its accuracy. Conservative estimates put the program's error rate at just under 1% � meaning that one out of every 100 legal job applicants could be found ineligible to work. Nearly half of those will not be able to fix the problem even though they are citizens or legal workers, according to the National Immigration Law Center. The reality is that the error rate may be much higher. Consider that in 2008, Intel Corp. reported that just over 12% of its workers were wrongly tagged as ineligible, according to the Migration Policy Center in Washington. Or that a survey by Los Angeles County of employees found an error rate of 2.7 in 2008 and 2.0 in 2009, according to a report submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The error rate is especially high in cities with large immigrant communities.
Furthermore, E-Verify doesn't detect identity theft or prevent unscrupulous employers from moving their workforce off the books. Nor does the law guarantee employers that they will be immune from losing their licenses if E-Verify mistakenly allows them to hire an undocumented worker. That lack of protection may, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted in his dissent, persuade some business owners to avoid hiring those who look or sound foreign-born.
At the very least, the court's ruling should prompt the Obama administration to act quickly to fix E-Verify and improve its accuracy. And the White House should seek a qualified candidate to serve as the Justice Department's special counsel in charge of enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration law.
But the court's ruling doesn't fix the bigger problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Arizona and other states that have passed similar measures are stumbling to create their own immigration laws because the current system isn't working. Thursday's decision should put Washington on notice that in the absence of a federal solution, states will step in to fill the void.
D.C. region�s Asian population is up 60 percent since 2000, census data show (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-regions-asian-population-is-up-60-percent-since-2000-census-data-show/2011/05/25/AGvgndBH_story.html) By Carol Morello and Dan Keating | The Washington Post
A Bond for the Homeland (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/24/a_bond_for_the_homeland) By NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA, DILIP RATHA | Foreign Policy
More People, Please
Don't worry about the booming global population -- celebrate it. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/23/more_people_please)
By | Foreign Policy
How Latinos Got Stung (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/22/how_latinos_got_stung_109943.html) By Ruben Navarrette | Denver Post
What immigrants contribute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-immigrants-contribute/2011/05/19/AFjy9L9G_story.html) By Alejandro Becerra | The Washington Post
Secure Communities program: A flawed deportation tool (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secure-20110523,0,4886580.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that permits local officials to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. The decision makes sense in principle but not in practice.
Under the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, business owners are required to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm if a person is authorized to work in this country. Employers must electronically check workers' names against databases kept by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Workers found to be ineligible have up to eight working days to straighten out the problem before employers would be required to fire them. If a company is found to have knowingly hired an undocumented worker once, it can have its licenses suspended; twice, the company may be shut down.
The problem with the Arizona statute is not that it penalizes employers who break the law. Businesses that hire undocumented immigrants should face fines or sanctions, as called for under current federal law (although many would disagree with the court's conclusion that states may impose such penalties). The problem is that the law relies on E-Verify, which isn't ready for prime time.
Until now, E-Verify has generally been used on a voluntary basis by employers because of concerns about its accuracy. Conservative estimates put the program's error rate at just under 1% � meaning that one out of every 100 legal job applicants could be found ineligible to work. Nearly half of those will not be able to fix the problem even though they are citizens or legal workers, according to the National Immigration Law Center. The reality is that the error rate may be much higher. Consider that in 2008, Intel Corp. reported that just over 12% of its workers were wrongly tagged as ineligible, according to the Migration Policy Center in Washington. Or that a survey by Los Angeles County of employees found an error rate of 2.7 in 2008 and 2.0 in 2009, according to a report submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The error rate is especially high in cities with large immigrant communities.
Furthermore, E-Verify doesn't detect identity theft or prevent unscrupulous employers from moving their workforce off the books. Nor does the law guarantee employers that they will be immune from losing their licenses if E-Verify mistakenly allows them to hire an undocumented worker. That lack of protection may, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted in his dissent, persuade some business owners to avoid hiring those who look or sound foreign-born.
At the very least, the court's ruling should prompt the Obama administration to act quickly to fix E-Verify and improve its accuracy. And the White House should seek a qualified candidate to serve as the Justice Department's special counsel in charge of enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration law.
But the court's ruling doesn't fix the bigger problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Arizona and other states that have passed similar measures are stumbling to create their own immigration laws because the current system isn't working. Thursday's decision should put Washington on notice that in the absence of a federal solution, states will step in to fill the void.
D.C. region�s Asian population is up 60 percent since 2000, census data show (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-regions-asian-population-is-up-60-percent-since-2000-census-data-show/2011/05/25/AGvgndBH_story.html) By Carol Morello and Dan Keating | The Washington Post
A Bond for the Homeland (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/24/a_bond_for_the_homeland) By NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA, DILIP RATHA | Foreign Policy
More People, Please
Don't worry about the booming global population -- celebrate it. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/23/more_people_please)
By | Foreign Policy
How Latinos Got Stung (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/22/how_latinos_got_stung_109943.html) By Ruben Navarrette | Denver Post
What immigrants contribute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-immigrants-contribute/2011/05/19/AFjy9L9G_story.html) By Alejandro Becerra | The Washington Post
Secure Communities program: A flawed deportation tool (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secure-20110523,0,4886580.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
2010 Natalie Portman is
Arjun
07-14 08:16 PM
I think all this mess is caused by H1B limit being 195k between year 2000 and 2004, before and after that 65k. Now when issuing H1B, they issue most of them to Indians (>50%) no country limit applies there. When it comes to GC and they put a 7% country limit and that�s where the backlog starts.
If they (USCIS) don't want to do anything about this then they should consider putting a limit on H1B and let business look for talent in countries other than India.
If they (USCIS) don't want to do anything about this then they should consider putting a limit on H1B and let business look for talent in countries other than India.
more...
puddonhead
06-26 07:57 PM
FYI - Historical Census of Housing Tables - Home Values (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html)
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Edit: Errrr - the median prices actually quadrupled - and not merely doubled, while the home sizes increased by about 2.3 - 2.4 times. This means roughly 1.6 times actual appreciation - i.e. less than 1% of compounded interest (1% over 60 years = 1.82 times). Compare that to the safest vehicle out there - TIPS and tell me who would have been better off - the guy who bought his home in 1940 or the one who bought TIPS (assuming his net cash flow was zero - i.e. he earned the same as he spent for the house).
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Edit: Errrr - the median prices actually quadrupled - and not merely doubled, while the home sizes increased by about 2.3 - 2.4 times. This means roughly 1.6 times actual appreciation - i.e. less than 1% of compounded interest (1% over 60 years = 1.82 times). Compare that to the safest vehicle out there - TIPS and tell me who would have been better off - the guy who bought his home in 1940 or the one who bought TIPS (assuming his net cash flow was zero - i.e. he earned the same as he spent for the house).
hair Natalie Portman does Nordic
Macaca
02-13 09:31 AM
This thread is for resources on lobbying for legislation
Pre-requisite: What is Legislation? (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3317&highlight=legislation)
Lobbying is the practice of trying to persuade legislators to propose, pass, or defeat legislation or to change existing laws. A lobbyist may work for a group, organization, or industry, and presents information on legislative proposals to support his or her clients' interests.
Resources
History of lobbying (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Byrd_History_Lobbying.htm)
The Nonprofit Lobbying Guide (http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/lobbyguide.html)
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (http://www.clpi.org/)
The Democracy Center (http://www.democracyctr.org/)
Pre-requisite: What is Legislation? (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3317&highlight=legislation)
Lobbying is the practice of trying to persuade legislators to propose, pass, or defeat legislation or to change existing laws. A lobbyist may work for a group, organization, or industry, and presents information on legislative proposals to support his or her clients' interests.
Resources
History of lobbying (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Byrd_History_Lobbying.htm)
The Nonprofit Lobbying Guide (http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/lobbyguide.html)
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (http://www.clpi.org/)
The Democracy Center (http://www.democracyctr.org/)
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-08 02:42 PM
If you enjoyed reading that one, you might like this one too.
Mother-in-law: When you rearrange the letters: Woman Hitler
This is hilarious! :)
Mother-in-law: When you rearrange the letters: Woman Hitler
This is hilarious! :)
hot Natalie Portman vegan no more:
Macaca
05-13 05:35 PM
Give Us Your Huddled Masses of Engineers
Why are we educating the best and the brightest, only to turn them down for visas? (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum89-news-articles-and-reports/1834574-afsheen-irani-the-girl-who-stumped-obama-172.html)
By PETER H. SCHUCK AND JOHN TYLER | Wall Street Journal
President Obama devoted almost all of Tuesday's speech in El Paso to the problems raised by illegal immigration: border and workplace enforcement, the need for a fair legalization process, and, almost apologetically, deportation. Only briefly did he mention our interest in attracting more high-skilled immigrants to work in the upper reaches of our economy.
"Today, we provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. But then our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States," Mr. Obama said. This "makes no sense," he added. The president is right.
The critical question is what to do about it. Finding an answer is urgent because the market for these workers is increasingly competitive�and the U.S. is no longer the only powerful magnet. Indeed, new studies from the American Enterprise Institute and the Kauffman Foundation find that we are losing ground in this competition.
Our current policy is plain stupid. Of the more than one million permanent admissions to the U.S. in 2010, fewer than 15% were admitted specifically for their employment skills. And most of those spots weren't going to the high-skilled immigrants themselves, but to their dependents.
The H-1B program that allows high-skilled immigrants to work here on renewable three-year visas, which can possibly lead to permanent status, is tiny. The current number of available visas is only one-third what it was in 2003. Plus, the program is hemmed in with foolish limitations: Visa-holders can't change jobs, and they must return home while awaiting permanent status.
Thus, many employers find the H-1B program useless. Many high-skilled workers prefer to go to more welcoming countries, like Canada and Australia, or to stay home where their economies are now often growing faster than ours. The U.S. does have a program to attract job-creating investors, but it is more limited than some of our competitors' investor programs. In 2010, we granted fewer than 2,500 such visas, down from the 2009 total although higher than in earlier years.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot. Research shows that high-skilled immigrants, particularly those in the so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields, enrich American society in many ways. These workers are notably innovative at a time when the U.S. is in some danger of losing its competitive edge. Not only do they apply for patents at a disproportionate rate, but the government grants their applications two to three times as often as with comparably educated Americans. Even if we limit the comparison to scientists and engineers, high-skilled immigrants in those fields still receive 20% more patents than their American counterparts.
In addition to being more innovative, high-skilled immigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial. They start and grow the kinds of new firms, such as Google, that account for the bulk of job creation. Research consistently shows that they start at least 25% of the STEM companies, which is double the percentage of all legal and illegal immigrants in the U.S. population.
So what can be done? Even without increasing the total number of permanent visas, we can redress the imbalance between admission categories to increase the proportion of those that are highly skilled. Two existing allotments merit low priority and should be granted instead to high-skilled workers: the 50,000 "diversity" visas granted at random to applicants who need only have a high-school education, and the 65,000 visas given to siblings of U.S. citizens. A lottery for the low-skilled is an absurd way to select future Americans, and sibling relationships today are readily sustainable through tourist visas and Skype.
A second reform would move to a point system for most would-be immigrants except for immediate family members, in which skills, entrepreneurship, English fluency, and other factors would count as well as close family ties. Third, we should grant permanent visas to any foreigner who receives a graduate degree from a qualified U.S. university. Finally, we should liberalize the H-1B program, perhaps moving from the current bureaucratic approach to an auction of the visas to employers who would bid for the skills they need, but also allowing for more job mobility for workers after a certain period.
Attracting more of the world's best talent should be a no-brainer. It should not be held hostage to the much harder problem of illegal migration.
Mr. Schuck, a professor at Yale Law School, is visiting at NYU Law School. Mr. Tyler is general counsel of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
You're getting a US visa! Oh, no, wait a minute (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513/ap_on_re_us/us_us_visa_lottery) By MATTHEW LEE | Associated Press
Abandoned on the Border (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/opinion/13Dever.html) By LARRY A. DEVER | New York Times
Passport, visa, virginity? A mother's tale of immigration in the 1970s (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/13/virginity-tests-uk-immigrants-1970s) By Huma Qureshi | The Guardian
Obama should get specific on immigration reform (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/obama-should-get-specific-on-immigration-reform/article2020261/) Globe and Mail Editorial
Why are we educating the best and the brightest, only to turn them down for visas? (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum89-news-articles-and-reports/1834574-afsheen-irani-the-girl-who-stumped-obama-172.html)
By PETER H. SCHUCK AND JOHN TYLER | Wall Street Journal
President Obama devoted almost all of Tuesday's speech in El Paso to the problems raised by illegal immigration: border and workplace enforcement, the need for a fair legalization process, and, almost apologetically, deportation. Only briefly did he mention our interest in attracting more high-skilled immigrants to work in the upper reaches of our economy.
"Today, we provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. But then our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States," Mr. Obama said. This "makes no sense," he added. The president is right.
The critical question is what to do about it. Finding an answer is urgent because the market for these workers is increasingly competitive�and the U.S. is no longer the only powerful magnet. Indeed, new studies from the American Enterprise Institute and the Kauffman Foundation find that we are losing ground in this competition.
Our current policy is plain stupid. Of the more than one million permanent admissions to the U.S. in 2010, fewer than 15% were admitted specifically for their employment skills. And most of those spots weren't going to the high-skilled immigrants themselves, but to their dependents.
The H-1B program that allows high-skilled immigrants to work here on renewable three-year visas, which can possibly lead to permanent status, is tiny. The current number of available visas is only one-third what it was in 2003. Plus, the program is hemmed in with foolish limitations: Visa-holders can't change jobs, and they must return home while awaiting permanent status.
Thus, many employers find the H-1B program useless. Many high-skilled workers prefer to go to more welcoming countries, like Canada and Australia, or to stay home where their economies are now often growing faster than ours. The U.S. does have a program to attract job-creating investors, but it is more limited than some of our competitors' investor programs. In 2010, we granted fewer than 2,500 such visas, down from the 2009 total although higher than in earlier years.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot. Research shows that high-skilled immigrants, particularly those in the so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields, enrich American society in many ways. These workers are notably innovative at a time when the U.S. is in some danger of losing its competitive edge. Not only do they apply for patents at a disproportionate rate, but the government grants their applications two to three times as often as with comparably educated Americans. Even if we limit the comparison to scientists and engineers, high-skilled immigrants in those fields still receive 20% more patents than their American counterparts.
In addition to being more innovative, high-skilled immigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial. They start and grow the kinds of new firms, such as Google, that account for the bulk of job creation. Research consistently shows that they start at least 25% of the STEM companies, which is double the percentage of all legal and illegal immigrants in the U.S. population.
So what can be done? Even without increasing the total number of permanent visas, we can redress the imbalance between admission categories to increase the proportion of those that are highly skilled. Two existing allotments merit low priority and should be granted instead to high-skilled workers: the 50,000 "diversity" visas granted at random to applicants who need only have a high-school education, and the 65,000 visas given to siblings of U.S. citizens. A lottery for the low-skilled is an absurd way to select future Americans, and sibling relationships today are readily sustainable through tourist visas and Skype.
A second reform would move to a point system for most would-be immigrants except for immediate family members, in which skills, entrepreneurship, English fluency, and other factors would count as well as close family ties. Third, we should grant permanent visas to any foreigner who receives a graduate degree from a qualified U.S. university. Finally, we should liberalize the H-1B program, perhaps moving from the current bureaucratic approach to an auction of the visas to employers who would bid for the skills they need, but also allowing for more job mobility for workers after a certain period.
Attracting more of the world's best talent should be a no-brainer. It should not be held hostage to the much harder problem of illegal migration.
Mr. Schuck, a professor at Yale Law School, is visiting at NYU Law School. Mr. Tyler is general counsel of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
You're getting a US visa! Oh, no, wait a minute (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513/ap_on_re_us/us_us_visa_lottery) By MATTHEW LEE | Associated Press
Abandoned on the Border (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/opinion/13Dever.html) By LARRY A. DEVER | New York Times
Passport, visa, virginity? A mother's tale of immigration in the 1970s (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/13/virginity-tests-uk-immigrants-1970s) By Huma Qureshi | The Guardian
Obama should get specific on immigration reform (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/obama-should-get-specific-on-immigration-reform/article2020261/) Globe and Mail Editorial
more...
house Natalieportman Projectrunway5
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
tattoo vegan Natalie Portman
vbkris77
03-31 07:42 PM
I am not convinced with the whole systematic preadjudication logic at all. I think it has to do with the mistakenly released memo by USCIS and the criteria which is listed in it. Companies meeting the criteria listed in that memo's H1s/I140s are being looked at and I485 app in the same file. There is no trend in the posts on this site by people who received RFEs to suggest systematic preadjudication, they are all over the place. EB2, EB3 - priority date-years ranging from 2001 to 2006, received RFEs.
May be their receipt dates are close.. Remember, CIS can't sort the application by PD. They can process in FIFO of RD.
May be their receipt dates are close.. Remember, CIS can't sort the application by PD. They can process in FIFO of RD.
more...
pictures Natalie Portman at the launch
pappu
07-15 06:55 AM
Why do you write 'I know this mess is depressing for EB3 folks' ?
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
Answering some of the posts:
Decisions taken by an employer to file in EB3 or advice by the lawyer to file in EB3 instead of EB2 (even if you disagree with the lawyer) cannot be the basis for administration to change the rules. It is an 'employment based' system and employer files the petition for the employee. You cannot write in the letter to DOS that your employer filed for EB3 even though you qualify for EB2 and thus you are entitled for xyz. Administration can only work within the legal limits. They cannot create more visas. If you are going to ask for more visas, they will tell you it will be done via a bill so that the law is changed and EB3 gets more visas. And thus we have to go for bills like recapture, STEM exemption and country caps. We already ran the admin fix campaign precisely for that reason to get things that we can get without changing the law. Recapture was added after much thought even though we knew it is a long shot. If we want more visas, then it has to be done legislatively. If we plan to do something via administration, then our list of items must be thoroughly researched they must offer solutions within the current law. It should merely be a regulation that provides guidance on the current law. Each item in the admin fix campaign did that.
And please stop taking out your anger on IV or each other. Take it out on the system that has caused problems for all of us and help each other fix this system. IV is everyone and we need to work together to fix it.
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
Answering some of the posts:
Decisions taken by an employer to file in EB3 or advice by the lawyer to file in EB3 instead of EB2 (even if you disagree with the lawyer) cannot be the basis for administration to change the rules. It is an 'employment based' system and employer files the petition for the employee. You cannot write in the letter to DOS that your employer filed for EB3 even though you qualify for EB2 and thus you are entitled for xyz. Administration can only work within the legal limits. They cannot create more visas. If you are going to ask for more visas, they will tell you it will be done via a bill so that the law is changed and EB3 gets more visas. And thus we have to go for bills like recapture, STEM exemption and country caps. We already ran the admin fix campaign precisely for that reason to get things that we can get without changing the law. Recapture was added after much thought even though we knew it is a long shot. If we want more visas, then it has to be done legislatively. If we plan to do something via administration, then our list of items must be thoroughly researched they must offer solutions within the current law. It should merely be a regulation that provides guidance on the current law. Each item in the admin fix campaign did that.
And please stop taking out your anger on IV or each other. Take it out on the system that has caused problems for all of us and help each other fix this system. IV is everyone and we need to work together to fix it.
dresses Vegan Shoes Natalie Portman:
coolest_me
12-26 05:40 PM
Most americans have supported the attack on Afghanistan, where Osama is believed to hiding along with other terrorists. Most americans oppose war on Iraq, only because 100,000 american soldiers have died, Isince the Iraq war began and the economy is in shambles and Iraqis are a drain on the failing economy.
Can you post the source of this information please. I don't think its anywhere close 100,000. Its somewhere arnd 10000.
Can you post the source of this information please. I don't think its anywhere close 100,000. Its somewhere arnd 10000.
more...
makeup 1213natalie-portman-dior-vegan
gimme_GC2006
03-23 08:23 PM
ok...this is something..
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
girlfriend Natalie Portman is expecting
psvk
08-05 06:02 PM
We always hear "the rules" from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side. These are our rules! Print this out and pass to your partner for a greater understanding:
.
Could not stop laughing on most of them. Thanks to all.
Most of them on the same topic. Hope you guys not having FUN(!) at home :D:D
.
Could not stop laughing on most of them. Thanks to all.
Most of them on the same topic. Hope you guys not having FUN(!) at home :D:D
hairstyles Natalie Portman wearing Jason
Gravitation
03-25 01:25 PM
Good Points. I like discussing real-estate; I'm deeply interested in it. So in that spirit of having a good conversation, here's my response:
I completely agree that buying a house is a long term move. But I disagree with some of the points:
1. Does rent always go up? No, my rent did not go up at all during the real estate boom as the number of ppl renting was low. Recently my rent has gone up only $75 pm. (love rent control!!!) So in 5 years, my monthly rent has gone up a total of $125 per month
Real Estate market is always local. Unlike the market for -let's say- rice, which can be transported from one place where it's abundant to where it's scarce easily. Real Estate remains where it is. It's also subjected to a lot of local laws, municipal regulations etc. So, any discussion we have here will NOT apply to every single location. You have to research your own local regulations/market etc.
If you have rent control, it significantly changes the picture. It usually doesn't make sense to buy if you have rent control.
2. I hear about tax rebate for homeowners. But what about property tax?
Yep, you pay it when you own a house. And yes, you pay it when you rent (it's rolled into your rent). The difference is that when you own, it's tax-deductible; if you pay it as part of your rent, it's not.
3. What about mortgage insurance payments?
You don't pay PMI, if you put down 20%. Not a bad idea to save that much. It forces one to learn financial planning and forward thinking.
It is a misconception that 5-10 years is the cycle for real estate.
Here's how in a sane real estate market the cycle should work:
No population influx in your area or there is no exodus from your area:
Your real estate ownership should be 25 years because that's when the next generation is ready to buy houses.
However, in places like SF Bay Area/new York/Boston where there is continuous influx of young working ppl this cycle can be reduced to 15-20 years.
Over the last few years, nobody thought of longevity required to make money in RE. Now that it is tanking ppl are talking about 5-10 years. Unless you are buying in a booming place, your ownership has to be 15+ years to turn a real profit.
Profit/Loss is not what the primary residence is for.
This is purely the financial aspect of ownership. If you have a family I think its really nice to have a house but you don't have to really take on the liability. You can rent the same house for much less. But if you are clear in your mind that no matter what I am going to live in XYZ town/city for the next 20 years, go for it.
You can rent for less, now, but how about later? You're assuming rents don't go up, but they do. One of my neighbors pays $250 per month in loan payment for a house he bought 20 years ago (property tax and insurance adds $550 more). It was a big payment then. Now it's almost live living for free. If he rented this he'd by paying $2500 at least. Again, if you don't plan to settle down, don't buy. But owning your primary residence is the first step towards prosperity.
As a sidenote for Indians. We all have either aging or soon to start aging parents. The way I see it, caring for aging parents is a social debt that we must pay back. This will need me to go back to India. Therefore, if you feel you need to care for your parents, don't commit to a house.
Yes, if you're planning to go back... don't buy.
I completely agree that buying a house is a long term move. But I disagree with some of the points:
1. Does rent always go up? No, my rent did not go up at all during the real estate boom as the number of ppl renting was low. Recently my rent has gone up only $75 pm. (love rent control!!!) So in 5 years, my monthly rent has gone up a total of $125 per month
Real Estate market is always local. Unlike the market for -let's say- rice, which can be transported from one place where it's abundant to where it's scarce easily. Real Estate remains where it is. It's also subjected to a lot of local laws, municipal regulations etc. So, any discussion we have here will NOT apply to every single location. You have to research your own local regulations/market etc.
If you have rent control, it significantly changes the picture. It usually doesn't make sense to buy if you have rent control.
2. I hear about tax rebate for homeowners. But what about property tax?
Yep, you pay it when you own a house. And yes, you pay it when you rent (it's rolled into your rent). The difference is that when you own, it's tax-deductible; if you pay it as part of your rent, it's not.
3. What about mortgage insurance payments?
You don't pay PMI, if you put down 20%. Not a bad idea to save that much. It forces one to learn financial planning and forward thinking.
It is a misconception that 5-10 years is the cycle for real estate.
Here's how in a sane real estate market the cycle should work:
No population influx in your area or there is no exodus from your area:
Your real estate ownership should be 25 years because that's when the next generation is ready to buy houses.
However, in places like SF Bay Area/new York/Boston where there is continuous influx of young working ppl this cycle can be reduced to 15-20 years.
Over the last few years, nobody thought of longevity required to make money in RE. Now that it is tanking ppl are talking about 5-10 years. Unless you are buying in a booming place, your ownership has to be 15+ years to turn a real profit.
Profit/Loss is not what the primary residence is for.
This is purely the financial aspect of ownership. If you have a family I think its really nice to have a house but you don't have to really take on the liability. You can rent the same house for much less. But if you are clear in your mind that no matter what I am going to live in XYZ town/city for the next 20 years, go for it.
You can rent for less, now, but how about later? You're assuming rents don't go up, but they do. One of my neighbors pays $250 per month in loan payment for a house he bought 20 years ago (property tax and insurance adds $550 more). It was a big payment then. Now it's almost live living for free. If he rented this he'd by paying $2500 at least. Again, if you don't plan to settle down, don't buy. But owning your primary residence is the first step towards prosperity.
As a sidenote for Indians. We all have either aging or soon to start aging parents. The way I see it, caring for aging parents is a social debt that we must pay back. This will need me to go back to India. Therefore, if you feel you need to care for your parents, don't commit to a house.
Yes, if you're planning to go back... don't buy.
panky72
08-08 10:39 PM
HERE COMES THE BEST JOKE OF THIS THREAD
I got a RED dot for this post.
Comment - "Racist Joke".
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up.
I got a RED dot for this post.
Comment - "Racist Joke".
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up.
bobzibub
01-07 07:43 PM
Blaming any religion on terrorism is inappropriate, inflammatory, and just plain irresponsible.
Here's some proof for you:
MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront)
• Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
And I'll give you a couple specific examples :
Al-Fakhoura School Bombed, 42 Killed, Including Children; 13,000 Homeless; Water, Medicine in Short Supply (http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/al-fakhoura-school-bombed-42-killed.html)
Muhammad Atta was radicalized by watching the gruesome results of that attack and he was a 9/11 hijacker. (He flew one of the planes.) That attack happened to be Israel bombing a school in 1986.
Torture trail to September 11 : A two-part investigation into state brutality opens with a look at how the violent interrogation of Islamist extremists hardened their views, helped to create al-Qaida and now, more than ever, is fuelling fundamentalist hatred (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/24/alqaida.terrorism1)
Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, for example was tortured in Egypt. He was Al Q's number 2 and known as the "brains" behind the 9/11 attacks. He was a successful doctor.
It is not religion that makes people willing to blow up themselves and kill others. It is perceived oppression against one's people. If you look closely enough, you will find it.
Blaming religious beliefs on terrorism is sloppy thinking that:
inflames people
justifies further violence
divides people
creates more terrorism
The IRA, Shining Path, the Basques, and yes, Al Q, all have one thing in common: their political aspirations for their people to be freed from what they see as oppression. The Irish Catholics weren't allowed good jobs. Peruvian Marxists were unhappy with their government. The Basques were mistreated by Franco. Many Middle Easterners want the right to form their own governments, which we in the west actively prevent by supporting dictatorships.
Invariably, when people blame religion for some injustice, there is a political or economic reason behind it. The Crusades, for example, were not about converting people, but about wealth, power and what they saw as "glory".
Please stop with the religious scape goating, bigotry and hatred. It leads nowhere but down.
Here's some proof for you:
MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront)
• Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
And I'll give you a couple specific examples :
Al-Fakhoura School Bombed, 42 Killed, Including Children; 13,000 Homeless; Water, Medicine in Short Supply (http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/al-fakhoura-school-bombed-42-killed.html)
Muhammad Atta was radicalized by watching the gruesome results of that attack and he was a 9/11 hijacker. (He flew one of the planes.) That attack happened to be Israel bombing a school in 1986.
Torture trail to September 11 : A two-part investigation into state brutality opens with a look at how the violent interrogation of Islamist extremists hardened their views, helped to create al-Qaida and now, more than ever, is fuelling fundamentalist hatred (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/24/alqaida.terrorism1)
Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, for example was tortured in Egypt. He was Al Q's number 2 and known as the "brains" behind the 9/11 attacks. He was a successful doctor.
It is not religion that makes people willing to blow up themselves and kill others. It is perceived oppression against one's people. If you look closely enough, you will find it.
Blaming religious beliefs on terrorism is sloppy thinking that:
inflames people
justifies further violence
divides people
creates more terrorism
The IRA, Shining Path, the Basques, and yes, Al Q, all have one thing in common: their political aspirations for their people to be freed from what they see as oppression. The Irish Catholics weren't allowed good jobs. Peruvian Marxists were unhappy with their government. The Basques were mistreated by Franco. Many Middle Easterners want the right to form their own governments, which we in the west actively prevent by supporting dictatorships.
Invariably, when people blame religion for some injustice, there is a political or economic reason behind it. The Crusades, for example, were not about converting people, but about wealth, power and what they saw as "glory".
Please stop with the religious scape goating, bigotry and hatred. It leads nowhere but down.
No comments:
Post a Comment