chanduv23
09-13 12:01 PM
Just now contibuted USD 100.00..sorry could not contribute a big amount..under a huge debt now...may be in future..
PayPal Confirmation Number: 06B71369TE645612G
thanks
Thanks for your wonderful gesture
PayPal Confirmation Number: 06B71369TE645612G
thanks
Thanks for your wonderful gesture
wallpaper Face Off
Alien
03-12 09:53 PM
I know someone with PD EB3-I 2003 March who got his GC today.
ras
09-17 07:27 PM
Thanks VPuram,
You explained it clearly and infact saved many people who would have spent hundreds of dollars to get just these clarified. That is the reason why people hop on to IV to share the knowledge and benefit each other. IV rocks!
You explained it clearly and infact saved many people who would have spent hundreds of dollars to get just these clarified. That is the reason why people hop on to IV to share the knowledge and benefit each other. IV rocks!
2011 SyFy Face Off Competition
GCwaitforever
04-02 11:49 AM
I have not seen one single person getting so many red dots for playing a devils advocate and trying to defend USCIS. :D
All of us are passionate and sometimes this passion overtakes logic. If you are fed up with USCIS, suing them or putting pressure on them through Congress/Legislature/Press are the only options.
You have seen what happened to the Ombudsman and his reports. Year over year, same findings pile up in his reports and he finally left. If someone who has internal access to USCIS workings and has a mandate to change USCIS functions to benefit us - the paying customers, could not relieve inertia of USCIS, I suspect you and I do not have much of a chance.
Courts and judges are definitely going to punish USCIS for any quantifiable losses suffered by us. If you can find any, sue them.
All of us are passionate and sometimes this passion overtakes logic. If you are fed up with USCIS, suing them or putting pressure on them through Congress/Legislature/Press are the only options.
You have seen what happened to the Ombudsman and his reports. Year over year, same findings pile up in his reports and he finally left. If someone who has internal access to USCIS workings and has a mandate to change USCIS functions to benefit us - the paying customers, could not relieve inertia of USCIS, I suspect you and I do not have much of a chance.
Courts and judges are definitely going to punish USCIS for any quantifiable losses suffered by us. If you can find any, sue them.
more...
needhelp!
09-12 11:32 AM
thanks IV
laborchic
05-06 11:55 AM
Called first 7 from the list
Brown, Gregg, Lugar, Enzi, Graham, Hatch Cornyn, Kyl
Will try to get to the rest of them later in the day.
Brown, Gregg, Lugar, Enzi, Graham, Hatch Cornyn, Kyl
Will try to get to the rest of them later in the day.
more...
PD_Dec2002
06-01 03:46 PM
THIS IS VALID ONLY IF THE CIR BILL BECOMES A LAW IN ITS CURRENT FORM....
From what I know (largely due to the posts on these forums), if your I-140 was not filed by May 15th 2007, you will have to reapply for your GC in the new system.
LC or I-485 is not relevant here. The cutoff date is determined by your I-140 filing date.
Also, between May 15th 2007 and October 1st 2008 (likely), no new I-140s can be applied. Thus, it would make no sense to apply for a LC either. USCIS will only process backlogged I-485 cases and issue green cards.
Finally, it is really unfair for them to set this cutoff date retroactively. But it is legal for them to do this. Can't sue them for it.
Hope this clears things.
Thanks,
Jayant
From what I know (largely due to the posts on these forums), if your I-140 was not filed by May 15th 2007, you will have to reapply for your GC in the new system.
LC or I-485 is not relevant here. The cutoff date is determined by your I-140 filing date.
Also, between May 15th 2007 and October 1st 2008 (likely), no new I-140s can be applied. Thus, it would make no sense to apply for a LC either. USCIS will only process backlogged I-485 cases and issue green cards.
Finally, it is really unfair for them to set this cutoff date retroactively. But it is legal for them to do this. Can't sue them for it.
Hope this clears things.
Thanks,
Jayant
2010 McKenzie Westmore in quot;Face Off
inskrish
08-11 07:34 PM
I am July 2nd filer, Got finger print notice from NSC with notice dated 8/7.
Congrats!
Congrats!
more...
pappu
12-16 03:37 PM
I'snt tracker broken (Sorting by PD ) for some time now.
We will improve it soon. But the data is still useful.
We will improve it soon. But the data is still useful.
hair Re: SyFy#39;s Face-Off
cessua
07-06 01:04 PM
This read in conjunction thing is the dumbest thing....
more...
bpratap
07-21 12:53 AM
They may not consider EAD, but if you submit a copy of I-140 they will consider that.
I also had to go thru a cycle of process, but finally they approved on on submitting a copy of I-140 Approval letter
I also had to go thru a cycle of process, but finally they approved on on submitting a copy of I-140 Approval letter
hot Face Off, the new reality
gc28262
03-06 05:44 PM
.................................................. ....................
.................................................. .................................................. .......
Also, current Economy may force them to use larger number of FB visas for EBs for next few years.
.................................................. .....
Could you explain this point. Why would lesser number of FB visas be issued in a bad economy ?
Does economy state has any relation to FB visas ?
For pre-adjudication, visa availability or the chances of PD becoming current is not necessary. They can pre-adjudicate based on receipt date.
My guess:
Probably they are processing all employment based applications right away so that they can prepare for CIR 2009. I guess Obama will take CIR this year itself as he has a very high approval rating and lot of goodwill now.
.................................................. .................................................. .......
Also, current Economy may force them to use larger number of FB visas for EBs for next few years.
.................................................. .....
Could you explain this point. Why would lesser number of FB visas be issued in a bad economy ?
Does economy state has any relation to FB visas ?
For pre-adjudication, visa availability or the chances of PD becoming current is not necessary. They can pre-adjudicate based on receipt date.
My guess:
Probably they are processing all employment based applications right away so that they can prepare for CIR 2009. I guess Obama will take CIR this year itself as he has a very high approval rating and lot of goodwill now.
more...
house Channel called Face Off.
smc
07-23 10:11 PM
Congratulations, enjoy it!
tattoo Conor in disguise: One of the many Face Off competitions to be overcome.
chanduv23
09-13 03:21 PM
Order Details - Sep 13, 2007 12:40 PM GMT-07:00
Google Order #949176417011663
Great, and please make it to the rally
Google Order #949176417011663
Great, and please make it to the rally
more...
pictures FACE OFF (SyFy)
pappu
09-03 10:48 AM
I think there is more smartness needed than luck in the greencard process. If you look at the posts in this thread there are some people that came to USA in 1990s and still waiting, while some that came much later are on their way to citizenship. Some got the EB2 route and are happy and some in EB3 have only gloom before them.
This in my opinion has helped smart folks among us:
- They applied for GC as soon as possible. Those who waited did not give importance to Greencard as soon as they started a job in USA are now paying for their mistakes. During the initial days of career I have seen people saying that GC is not important to them etc but when their H1B is about to expire they panic and get desperate for Green Card.
- Before pre-PERM era in 2005, smart folks took up jobs in states where labor certification had no backlog. They are now either waiting for citizenship or already citizens. On the other hand people in states like CA, NY etc suffered due to labor backlogs and far from getting greencard in hand.
- Any company can be good or bad for an individual. It it not a question of consulting vs fortune 500 or small vs big size of a company. Smart folks know what matters them the most when they join a company. When company sees them as a valuable asset, it applies for them. I have seen where company applied for GC as soon as the employee joined it. And I have seen posts where people had to wait for several years before company applied.
- People who took advantage of the Labor substitution got faster labors. Some could take advantage of EB2 labors and they are very fortunate. This is in no way endorsing the labor substitution rule, but in pre 2007 times nobody was protesting against it. This is a sad reality.
- Smart folks took the risk and changed jobs wth EB2 job requirements, so that they can file in EB2. Such folks with 2007 PD are happy today and people with 2003 PDs in EB3 will have to wait for a long time.
- If you read posts on this thread, many people have posted that they feel they are being screwed by their employer or lawyer. But hardly anyone has said they took any action against it. This is also a sad reality where we as a community have failed and will continue to suffer.
- Many folks have said that they thought they were in EB2. But found they are in EB3. This shows another weakness of our community and lack of awareness. IV forum tries to spread the awareness but unless an individual takes initiative, they will suffer.
Many people were able to file I485 in July 2007 due to IV effort. Imagine a 2004 EB3 India person without EAD today? How will he survive a job loss on H1B in a bad economy? We should take a lesson from that event and try for another big push. There is no other shortcut for us. It is shocking to find people on this thread that are in this country for more than 10 years and without a green card. These folks should be the most vocal folks in this effort.
-
This in my opinion has helped smart folks among us:
- They applied for GC as soon as possible. Those who waited did not give importance to Greencard as soon as they started a job in USA are now paying for their mistakes. During the initial days of career I have seen people saying that GC is not important to them etc but when their H1B is about to expire they panic and get desperate for Green Card.
- Before pre-PERM era in 2005, smart folks took up jobs in states where labor certification had no backlog. They are now either waiting for citizenship or already citizens. On the other hand people in states like CA, NY etc suffered due to labor backlogs and far from getting greencard in hand.
- Any company can be good or bad for an individual. It it not a question of consulting vs fortune 500 or small vs big size of a company. Smart folks know what matters them the most when they join a company. When company sees them as a valuable asset, it applies for them. I have seen where company applied for GC as soon as the employee joined it. And I have seen posts where people had to wait for several years before company applied.
- People who took advantage of the Labor substitution got faster labors. Some could take advantage of EB2 labors and they are very fortunate. This is in no way endorsing the labor substitution rule, but in pre 2007 times nobody was protesting against it. This is a sad reality.
- Smart folks took the risk and changed jobs wth EB2 job requirements, so that they can file in EB2. Such folks with 2007 PD are happy today and people with 2003 PDs in EB3 will have to wait for a long time.
- If you read posts on this thread, many people have posted that they feel they are being screwed by their employer or lawyer. But hardly anyone has said they took any action against it. This is also a sad reality where we as a community have failed and will continue to suffer.
- Many folks have said that they thought they were in EB2. But found they are in EB3. This shows another weakness of our community and lack of awareness. IV forum tries to spread the awareness but unless an individual takes initiative, they will suffer.
Many people were able to file I485 in July 2007 due to IV effort. Imagine a 2004 EB3 India person without EAD today? How will he survive a job loss on H1B in a bad economy? We should take a lesson from that event and try for another big push. There is no other shortcut for us. It is shocking to find people on this thread that are in this country for more than 10 years and without a green card. These folks should be the most vocal folks in this effort.
-
dresses SyFy series quot;Face Offquot;.
bombaysardar
07-22 04:07 PM
bump
more...
makeup Face Off picture gallery
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
girlfriend With Face Off, Syfy has
immig4me
05-03 01:48 PM
Cornyn Open to Working on Immigration Reform - Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/45730-1.html)
Can the members in Texas and others call on Sen. Cornyn's office and ask him to support the bill. I just called their office, and the staff says that he has no statement from the senator, and therefore has no position as of yet. I asked him about the above report, and all he offered was "no comments"
Hope IV members step up their efforts in calling the list of Senators and post their feedback on this forum. We can learn from each others feedback and bring more pressure on these legislators.
Can the members in Texas and others call on Sen. Cornyn's office and ask him to support the bill. I just called their office, and the staff says that he has no statement from the senator, and therefore has no position as of yet. I asked him about the above report, and all he offered was "no comments"
Hope IV members step up their efforts in calling the list of Senators and post their feedback on this forum. We can learn from each others feedback and bring more pressure on these legislators.
hairstyles Syfy Face Off Challenge plus
uumapathi
03-04 01:17 PM
I have a refi approval from DCU for a 15yr 5% 0pts and I am in AOS status. They did not have any issues with that.
Macaca
01-06 12:28 PM
You have some more in other science related disciplines like TIFR (not sure if they give M.S. degree).
I did not see MS in any discipline.
They had PhD CS also; my friend got PhD from there.
They also had something like a CS diploma (don't remember details). They had 10 (??) theoretically sound courses. Students in most US schools will not be able to handle these courses.
However, course content is not the only strength of US Education (all levels). Something else (which is hard to enumerate and quantify) happens outside the classes. But it does not happen to everyone: some are not receptive and others don't run into it!
I did not see MS in any discipline.
They had PhD CS also; my friend got PhD from there.
They also had something like a CS diploma (don't remember details). They had 10 (??) theoretically sound courses. Students in most US schools will not be able to handle these courses.
However, course content is not the only strength of US Education (all levels). Something else (which is hard to enumerate and quantify) happens outside the classes. But it does not happen to everyone: some are not receptive and others don't run into it!
gcisadawg
02-08 02:39 AM
If the girl is working and earning money, she has all the rights to spend the way she wants, including giving money to her parents. If she is not working, then help should be based only on humanitarian basis because we never know when one's financial situation changes. I can't understand how any girl can force her husband to spend for her parents and siblings especially when she is not earning.
No comments:
Post a Comment