unitednations
03-25 12:35 PM
Oh, and I think I should elaborate just a little more.
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
wallpaper the charlotte observer logo.
rsdang
08-29 12:09 PM
http://www.badmash.org/singhson.php
Enjoy...
Enjoy...
unitednations
03-24 04:04 PM
No, they figured out that it is consulting companies that are exploiting loopholes. Tell me what proof you have that ALL consulting companies are complying with H-1B requriements.
Is benching that happens in consulting legal? Is paying salary according to prevailing wages in Maine and sending the contractor to work in Manhattan legal? Please tell me how these practises by desi consulting firms are legal.
And you're telling me I am ignorant! You're funny :D
Every year; before tax deadline IRS issues a few press releases on arrrests/convictions for tax crimes.
They time it just so they can get it out to taxpayers prior to completing their tax returns that they should think twice before they try anything funny.
Now; I can tell you that most companies were not diligent in getting LCA's in different locations. It is not a big crime of not getting LCA's in different locations. However, if people are getting paid lower amount in a different location then what that LCA would have been then you have a problem.
If companies stick with giving $60k in salaries then most laws in h-1b go away and even if you don't have LCA for other location; you would have been getting paid more.
Now; I do know some candidates who worked for those iowa companies. They transferred h-1b on same day that news broke out. I looked at their w-2 and paystubs and they were working at a higher rate jurisdiction. However; they were getting paid considerable sums in per diems. On paper it showed they may have only been getting paid $45K but in reality they were getting paid a lot more. All the company has to do is make the per diem taxable and it would count as h-1b wage and that will get rid of most of the trouble they are currently in. It was a case of employer and employee greed but at high level it wouldn't have harmed anybody; just on paper it didn't look right.
Hardly anyone at a staffing company will be making less then $60K unless they are trying to do things in a tax free way. If this was the only issue in the iowa compoanies then i am pretty sure this was an attempt to make a big splash which will slowly get settled in a quiet way.
Sort of what happened with Arthur Anderson in Enron. AA got convicted for obstruction of justice; whole thing fell apart; they lost employees, clients, the firm; pensions, etc. After appeals they won and the governmnet impacted so many peoples lives for nothing.
Is benching that happens in consulting legal? Is paying salary according to prevailing wages in Maine and sending the contractor to work in Manhattan legal? Please tell me how these practises by desi consulting firms are legal.
And you're telling me I am ignorant! You're funny :D
Every year; before tax deadline IRS issues a few press releases on arrrests/convictions for tax crimes.
They time it just so they can get it out to taxpayers prior to completing their tax returns that they should think twice before they try anything funny.
Now; I can tell you that most companies were not diligent in getting LCA's in different locations. It is not a big crime of not getting LCA's in different locations. However, if people are getting paid lower amount in a different location then what that LCA would have been then you have a problem.
If companies stick with giving $60k in salaries then most laws in h-1b go away and even if you don't have LCA for other location; you would have been getting paid more.
Now; I do know some candidates who worked for those iowa companies. They transferred h-1b on same day that news broke out. I looked at their w-2 and paystubs and they were working at a higher rate jurisdiction. However; they were getting paid considerable sums in per diems. On paper it showed they may have only been getting paid $45K but in reality they were getting paid a lot more. All the company has to do is make the per diem taxable and it would count as h-1b wage and that will get rid of most of the trouble they are currently in. It was a case of employer and employee greed but at high level it wouldn't have harmed anybody; just on paper it didn't look right.
Hardly anyone at a staffing company will be making less then $60K unless they are trying to do things in a tax free way. If this was the only issue in the iowa compoanies then i am pretty sure this was an attempt to make a big splash which will slowly get settled in a quiet way.
Sort of what happened with Arthur Anderson in Enron. AA got convicted for obstruction of justice; whole thing fell apart; they lost employees, clients, the firm; pensions, etc. After appeals they won and the governmnet impacted so many peoples lives for nothing.
2011 charlotte observer logo.
Bpositive
01-06 04:50 PM
"They win people like you who would support killing on innocent civilians and school kids. "
You must be kidding me!!
You must be kidding me!!
more...
BondJ
04-08 11:45 PM
If this bill passes along with CIR, that gives the ability to file for 485 even without visa numbers being available, I think most of the placement companies would file for LC (PERM) as soon as they recruit someone (and get H1 approved). That would allow them to file for 140 and 485. Am I missing something here?
Marphad
12-17 02:48 PM
I never commented Muslims as terrorists and even don't believe so. If you read the title again, it clearly says "I hate converting terrorism to muslimism" - which few morons like Antulay are doing. They are actually indirectly trying to imply that.
If I meant anywhere that I have problem with muslims, believe me it will be writing issue. Yes, I do have problems with people who are Indian citizens but support Pakistan and terrorism.
What is there in his remarks to be so 'terrorised' about? Where is 'Muslimism' here?
I hope as far as there are people like you and some others who commented as if 'Muslim means Terrorist' (but you won't tell that directly), there will be more terrorists; and it is quite understandable.
If I meant anywhere that I have problem with muslims, believe me it will be writing issue. Yes, I do have problems with people who are Indian citizens but support Pakistan and terrorism.
What is there in his remarks to be so 'terrorised' about? Where is 'Muslimism' here?
I hope as far as there are people like you and some others who commented as if 'Muslim means Terrorist' (but you won't tell that directly), there will be more terrorists; and it is quite understandable.
more...
alias
04-08 07:01 AM
I might be interesting to check with a lawyer whether:
H1B extensions based on I-140 (beyond 6 years) are same as normal H1B extensions(without I-140). In other words, if someone has an I-140 approved does this bill still affect his H1B extension petition(assuming he is consulting)?
H1B extensions based on I-140 (beyond 6 years) are same as normal H1B extensions(without I-140). In other words, if someone has an I-140 approved does this bill still affect his H1B extension petition(assuming he is consulting)?
2010 the charlotte observer logo.
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...
yagw
08-08 12:41 AM
Wonderful thread... keep it flowing folks... :)
here are some yogi's quotes:
"This is like deja vu all over again."
"You can observe a lot just by watching."
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
"If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else."
"You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six."
"Baseball is 90% mental -- the other half is physical."
"If you come to a fork in the road, take it."
"I made a wrong mistake."
"Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."
and now the best one...
"I didn't really say everything I said."
here are some yogi's quotes:
"This is like deja vu all over again."
"You can observe a lot just by watching."
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
"If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else."
"You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six."
"Baseball is 90% mental -- the other half is physical."
"If you come to a fork in the road, take it."
"I made a wrong mistake."
"Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."
and now the best one...
"I didn't really say everything I said."
hair Location: The holding company
Macaca
02-29 07:21 AM
In Defense of Lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803232.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Charles Krauthammer | WP, Feb 29
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
more...
alterego
04-07 06:24 PM
I am glad IV is taking a strong stand against this bill. IV should work with Compete America (they have more of a vested interests in this) to make sure this bill doesn't see the light of day.
This bill is introduced by 'Pro-Illegal,pro-union and protectionist' section of Democratic party and 'Anti-immigration at all cost' section of the Republican party. I believe both these groups are fringe elements in both parties. But they could use this bill as a bargain chip for CIR and might get it passed because of it. So we should not take this lightly even if we might not be screwed by this. It will definitely hurt people coming behind us.
Only reform H1b needs is to increase the quota or have no quota. And also to tie the H1b to the worker and not to the employee. And I dont see any in this bill.
Last time I looked Sen. Durbin was not anti immigrant nor was he Republican. He is a co-sponsor of this bill isn't he?
The fact is there is abuse of the H1b program currently and it is need of modification before even fair minded people agree on an expansion (Which also I feel is needed).
In the end we are likely to see both these things happen together, whenever it does happen, ie a fix to the program as well as an expansion of it.
This bill is introduced by 'Pro-Illegal,pro-union and protectionist' section of Democratic party and 'Anti-immigration at all cost' section of the Republican party. I believe both these groups are fringe elements in both parties. But they could use this bill as a bargain chip for CIR and might get it passed because of it. So we should not take this lightly even if we might not be screwed by this. It will definitely hurt people coming behind us.
Only reform H1b needs is to increase the quota or have no quota. And also to tie the H1b to the worker and not to the employee. And I dont see any in this bill.
Last time I looked Sen. Durbin was not anti immigrant nor was he Republican. He is a co-sponsor of this bill isn't he?
The fact is there is abuse of the H1b program currently and it is need of modification before even fair minded people agree on an expansion (Which also I feel is needed).
In the end we are likely to see both these things happen together, whenever it does happen, ie a fix to the program as well as an expansion of it.
hot girlfriend at the Charlotte
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
more...
house the charlotte observer font.
damialok
03-31 01:50 PM
Example: $ 500,000/- purchase price (3000 sq ft single family home)
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
I am currently looking to build my home in SF Bay Area and these figures dont look that encouraging. Here is what I have got and this is due to severe crunch in construction industry.
Land: $600,000 (it was listed for $850K 12 months back, thats after 25% drop)
Construction Cost: $190/sqft (It was $280~$350 2 years back) - for 3000sqft - $570,000
City Permits and Architectural fees - $120,000
A grand total of $1.3 Million. But this if if you were to build it, the run-of-the-mill tract home builders can get it much cheaper, say around $1million.
Again these figures vary by region but generally give a picture of cost breakdown in California.
Land - 46%
Construction- 44%
Permits - 10%
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
I am currently looking to build my home in SF Bay Area and these figures dont look that encouraging. Here is what I have got and this is due to severe crunch in construction industry.
Land: $600,000 (it was listed for $850K 12 months back, thats after 25% drop)
Construction Cost: $190/sqft (It was $280~$350 2 years back) - for 3000sqft - $570,000
City Permits and Architectural fees - $120,000
A grand total of $1.3 Million. But this if if you were to build it, the run-of-the-mill tract home builders can get it much cheaper, say around $1million.
Again these figures vary by region but generally give a picture of cost breakdown in California.
Land - 46%
Construction- 44%
Permits - 10%
tattoo girlfriend the charlotte
a_yaja
05-17 07:20 AM
You have no arguments that make sense. You are arguing that doing something illegal is a great thing to do. Not so. And yes, I do support the bill as it will weed out some fraudsters from amongst us, who give the H-1B program a very bad rep.
You still have not told me why you are support the Durbin-Grassley bill and you are OK with consulting on a "full-time" basis. The Durbin-Grassley bill bans this.
The present laws are more then enough to go after offenders. The law is not being enforced. What makes you think that if the Durbin-Grassley bill is passed, all abuse will stop? People who abuse the system will continue to do so. They will simply say that the job is "permanant, full-time" or whatever the bill requires the job definition to be and file for H1B. And the show will go on. I guess at that point you will then dance when someone else will propose another bill to restrict H1Bs to some other sector that includes you.
You still have not told me why you are support the Durbin-Grassley bill and you are OK with consulting on a "full-time" basis. The Durbin-Grassley bill bans this.
The present laws are more then enough to go after offenders. The law is not being enforced. What makes you think that if the Durbin-Grassley bill is passed, all abuse will stop? People who abuse the system will continue to do so. They will simply say that the job is "permanant, full-time" or whatever the bill requires the job definition to be and file for H1B. And the show will go on. I guess at that point you will then dance when someone else will propose another bill to restrict H1Bs to some other sector that includes you.
more...
pictures of The Charlotte Observer
IL_Guy
06-08 11:42 AM
[QUOTE. Life would be boring playing safe.[/QUOTE]
Thats me, man! I tried both options "playing safe" and "daring out". I liked the later one better. I'm a H1-B, I owned a home for last five years and I'm absolutely happy.
My thoughts are that you should take risks in life (Home, Stocks...etc) until you are 40, you may win some and lose some. If you lose, you still have time to recover...either in US or your home country, at least you tried.
Regards.
Thats me, man! I tried both options "playing safe" and "daring out". I liked the later one better. I'm a H1-B, I owned a home for last five years and I'm absolutely happy.
My thoughts are that you should take risks in life (Home, Stocks...etc) until you are 40, you may win some and lose some. If you lose, you still have time to recover...either in US or your home country, at least you tried.
Regards.
dresses makeup the charlotte observer
NKR
03-28 05:10 PM
the bubble that we saw and are seeing is once in a life time event - it will never happen in USA for a long long time (in most places). it will happen more in places like bombay (2 bubbles in last 2 decade)..
With what you say, there is no guarantee for a long long time. So that means there is no guarantee till the kids become big and have their own kids, so should one live in an apartment for years and years?.
You say that renting gives you more mobility, why shouldn�t a person whose job is long term and who loves his job and who is not required to travel buy a house close by his office?
A house comes with its own baggage. Of course if someone decides to buy a house he would have already known what he is getting into. He would definitely factor in all the fees, taxes, insurance etc. Even considering all of these, if he/she thinks it is good for him and his family to buy a house, why should not having a GC prevent him from not buying?.
Dude, it will cost you less then 50$ for the paint. I and my wife painted our living room together by ourselves, when one is making a decision to buy a house costing hundreds and thousands of dollars do you think he will worry about kids painting the wall?.
The only rational point I see in your post is that it might not be a good idea to buy a house now and it probably makes more sense to wait and watch.
With what you say, there is no guarantee for a long long time. So that means there is no guarantee till the kids become big and have their own kids, so should one live in an apartment for years and years?.
You say that renting gives you more mobility, why shouldn�t a person whose job is long term and who loves his job and who is not required to travel buy a house close by his office?
A house comes with its own baggage. Of course if someone decides to buy a house he would have already known what he is getting into. He would definitely factor in all the fees, taxes, insurance etc. Even considering all of these, if he/she thinks it is good for him and his family to buy a house, why should not having a GC prevent him from not buying?.
Dude, it will cost you less then 50$ for the paint. I and my wife painted our living room together by ourselves, when one is making a decision to buy a house costing hundreds and thousands of dollars do you think he will worry about kids painting the wall?.
The only rational point I see in your post is that it might not be a good idea to buy a house now and it probably makes more sense to wait and watch.
more...
makeup THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
dartkid31
05-17 07:56 PM
Qualified_trash,
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
I agree 100 percent. Anyone who believes Lou Dobbs is a friend of LEGAL immigrants probably also believes Tom Tancredo and NumbersUsa Sympathize with legal immigrants. It always ticks me off whenever Tancredo is waxing poetic in the press about how legalizing illegals would be "sending the wrong message to those trying to do it the right way"; when he is actively trying to end all legal immigration. What a tool and hypocrite. Lou Dobbs falls in the same boat. Dont believe their tripe for one second.
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
I agree 100 percent. Anyone who believes Lou Dobbs is a friend of LEGAL immigrants probably also believes Tom Tancredo and NumbersUsa Sympathize with legal immigrants. It always ticks me off whenever Tancredo is waxing poetic in the press about how legalizing illegals would be "sending the wrong message to those trying to do it the right way"; when he is actively trying to end all legal immigration. What a tool and hypocrite. Lou Dobbs falls in the same boat. Dont believe their tripe for one second.
girlfriend the charlotte observer font.
sanju
05-17 10:08 AM
You have no arguments that make sense. You are arguing that doing something illegal is a great thing to do. Not so. And yes, I do support the bill as it will weed out some fraudsters from amongst us, who give the H-1B program a very bad rep.
The problem is not that it will "weed out some fraudsters from amongst us", the problem is that it will also force deserving people to leave, people waiting in line for 6 or more years in green card line. No one is arguing that "something illegal is a great thing to do" but the argument is, it is justified to implicate and screw-up someone who has done nothing wrong. Durbin-Grassley bill says that it intends to stop abuse and it goes ahead to screw-up everybody. Do you think that everybody here waiting for employment based green card is "illegal"???
The problem is not that it will "weed out some fraudsters from amongst us", the problem is that it will also force deserving people to leave, people waiting in line for 6 or more years in green card line. No one is arguing that "something illegal is a great thing to do" but the argument is, it is justified to implicate and screw-up someone who has done nothing wrong. Durbin-Grassley bill says that it intends to stop abuse and it goes ahead to screw-up everybody. Do you think that everybody here waiting for employment based green card is "illegal"???
hairstyles charlotte observer logo. The
paskal
04-09 11:59 AM
As is true with everything else it cannot be all gain.
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
i'm not opposing reform. in fact i strongly feel that without reform this mess cannot be resolved. just like you do. but creating a new mess with LCA's that can't be handled in time? is that the answer? what about if you already have an LC approved? sound like you still need to duplicate the entire process for H1b renewal...does that make sense to you?
or do you just want to support something, anything that might relieve the numbers?
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
i'm not opposing reform. in fact i strongly feel that without reform this mess cannot be resolved. just like you do. but creating a new mess with LCA's that can't be handled in time? is that the answer? what about if you already have an LC approved? sound like you still need to duplicate the entire process for H1b renewal...does that make sense to you?
or do you just want to support something, anything that might relieve the numbers?
diptam
08-05 04:37 PM
I was eligible for both EB2 and EB3 when my GC labor was filed - my employer filed it in EB3 because the queue is longer and i remain with them for longer duration. I had about 390 days of H clock left so arguing with that employer and finding another one was also not an option because for getting H extension beyond 6 yrs needs the GC labor to be more than 365 days old.
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
obviously
08-05 09:41 PM
started by a guy/gal who possibly spent the formative years of his/her life buried in text books because mama/papa wanted him/her to crack the JEE and get into IIT... possibly feted with flowers on his/her trip to the US...after lying on the F1 visa interview about intent to immigrate...and now seeking to raise a hue and cry because the protectionist sense of entitlement is being challenged by law abiding immigrants...someone that is obviously closeted in perspective...
obviously, a spoilt child crying sour grapes... the admins did not sweep anything under the carpet... they let this thread grow to 13 pages! obviously, you are someone that is unhappy with a lot of things. stop hurting yourself. you might invite a myocardial infraction given the rate at which you seem to be stressing out... there is no EB3 (majority) vs. EB3 (minority) issue... stop raking up more BS... enough is enough... someone has to have the b*lls to tell you that the world is bigger than you and your inflated sense of self worth and entitlement...got it?
i still dont see the EB2 job posting for this #1 guy/gal in a #2 company... what a #3 (third rate :)) poster with a #4 (fourth degree) threat that started this all... i can help your company find a qualified US citizen for YOUR EXACT JOB... go ahead, do post that... scared to do that? :)... obviously you are!!!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
PM me and I can help your company. No, I am not a body shopper and wont take commissions, thank you. Just thought I'd help a US company not have to deal with this immigration BS, so they can let you go and hire a US citizen instead. Seriously, I call that social service.
While I am at it, I can also contact special interest groups from the ACLU to Gay/Lesbian Groups to Veteran Groups to find out why their members dont get the kind of protected 'lines' that EB2's such as you have! After all, if EB2 is such a protected category, why not have other protections for other groups that need such protections? We can go ahead and divide the world into pieces as small as our mind... :D
My last post for this obvious loser... mama/papa would be proud, indeed :D... sad, sorry state of reality that we call the 'high skilled immigration cause' ...
While you are ranting and raving, dont forget to get back to basics... and read my earlier threads educating you on the basics of EB immigration and why the current interfiling / porting is a valid practice...
Go ahead, rant, rave... enjoy your stress... :D
BTW: I have more qualifications and success than people have letters in their long names :)... so, I know a little bit about success :D... and I didnt get it by throwing others under the bus... !
obviously, a spoilt child crying sour grapes... the admins did not sweep anything under the carpet... they let this thread grow to 13 pages! obviously, you are someone that is unhappy with a lot of things. stop hurting yourself. you might invite a myocardial infraction given the rate at which you seem to be stressing out... there is no EB3 (majority) vs. EB3 (minority) issue... stop raking up more BS... enough is enough... someone has to have the b*lls to tell you that the world is bigger than you and your inflated sense of self worth and entitlement...got it?
i still dont see the EB2 job posting for this #1 guy/gal in a #2 company... what a #3 (third rate :)) poster with a #4 (fourth degree) threat that started this all... i can help your company find a qualified US citizen for YOUR EXACT JOB... go ahead, do post that... scared to do that? :)... obviously you are!!!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
PM me and I can help your company. No, I am not a body shopper and wont take commissions, thank you. Just thought I'd help a US company not have to deal with this immigration BS, so they can let you go and hire a US citizen instead. Seriously, I call that social service.
While I am at it, I can also contact special interest groups from the ACLU to Gay/Lesbian Groups to Veteran Groups to find out why their members dont get the kind of protected 'lines' that EB2's such as you have! After all, if EB2 is such a protected category, why not have other protections for other groups that need such protections? We can go ahead and divide the world into pieces as small as our mind... :D
My last post for this obvious loser... mama/papa would be proud, indeed :D... sad, sorry state of reality that we call the 'high skilled immigration cause' ...
While you are ranting and raving, dont forget to get back to basics... and read my earlier threads educating you on the basics of EB immigration and why the current interfiling / porting is a valid practice...
Go ahead, rant, rave... enjoy your stress... :D
BTW: I have more qualifications and success than people have letters in their long names :)... so, I know a little bit about success :D... and I didnt get it by throwing others under the bus... !
No comments:
Post a Comment