john2255
07-21 08:17 AM
If you look at THOMAS it actually shows that Yeas are 55 and Nays are 40
So the bill passed the voting ....
but it failed because it was ruled "out-of-order" and hence rejected ...
I dont know why it was ruled out of order ... maybe because it was attached to the defence spending bill so it was not the right place to put in this kind of amendment....
I hope that Yeas mean YES and Nay mean "NO" or I need to get my head examined
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 240,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
So the bill passed the voting ....
but it failed because it was ruled "out-of-order" and hence rejected ...
I dont know why it was ruled out of order ... maybe because it was attached to the defence spending bill so it was not the right place to put in this kind of amendment....
I hope that Yeas mean YES and Nay mean "NO" or I need to get my head examined
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 240,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
wallpaper Christmas Bells clip art
miguy
05-25 08:58 AM
I think it is time to involve the Indian Government in this entire mess. The future of thousands of high tech workers and physicians is at stake. The indian govt did get involve in the UK Immigration mess recently....why not get them involved here?
gk_2000
04-21 02:49 PM
gk_2000,
no need to stop laughing....ur loving kids will be laughing more loud than yours in future, when you become old.
if you have no parents...or no good parents...please don't post stupid comments.
i know, all honest people will support this.
this is not new...i saw a website for this....which was signed by 100's 1000's people...could not find it now.
See, I respect your cause and support you. But what you are saying here is just your "opinion".
As a rule I never attack anyone's opinions, as long as they dont try to masquerade as facts
no need to stop laughing....ur loving kids will be laughing more loud than yours in future, when you become old.
if you have no parents...or no good parents...please don't post stupid comments.
i know, all honest people will support this.
this is not new...i saw a website for this....which was signed by 100's 1000's people...could not find it now.
See, I respect your cause and support you. But what you are saying here is just your "opinion".
As a rule I never attack anyone's opinions, as long as they dont try to masquerade as facts
2011 clip art wedding bells
gk_2000
06-18 07:23 PM
Wow OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLDD thread.
Here is new link (HR 2709, Jun 4):
H.R. 2709: Reuniting Families Act (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2709)
Here is new link (HR 2709, Jun 4):
H.R. 2709: Reuniting Families Act (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2709)
more...
VivekAhuja
03-18 06:05 PM
10000 more homes is nothing. This is not INDIA. The economy is so huge that 10000 homes is a drop in the ocean. And is the Govt. going to believe that all 10000 immigrants are going to buy homes? 75% of them won't qualify for new mortgage rules.
Plus, what is stopping you from buying a home right now?
Plus, what is stopping you from buying a home right now?
sapota
08-21 11:52 PM
For EB3 India Apr 04 PD, 3 more years seems about right.
more...
caydee
05-28 04:57 PM
Good points, only thing to add is not all innovations can be brought to notice to relate to a single employee ...most of the times we as employees are part of systemic effort that is innovating. It would be wrong to say that H1-bs are not contributing towards innovation ........
Good point. Very rarely can an invention be attributed to a single person. These days it is invariably a group effort.
By the way, why are we deviating?
Good point. Very rarely can an invention be attributed to a single person. These days it is invariably a group effort.
By the way, why are we deviating?
2010 wedding-ells-clipart6, Iamp;#39
kaisersose
05-13 10:28 AM
I and many folks in this forum have seen very few approvals for this category. How come USCIS says that this category is over subscribing the visa quota. Why they are moving un used visas to EB2 (no offense) why not for EB3?
We need IV help in this area.
I fail to see what is unjust about this. They move unused numbers from EB1 to EB2 because it works this way.
EB1 -> first level of preference
EB2 -> second level of preference
EB3 -> third level of preference
Now are you saying they should skip level 2 and drop some unused numbers from 1 to 3 directly? Why? That would actually be unjust.
To be fair, the US immigration system cannot be blamed because a lot of us desis have entered the queue.
We need IV help in this area.
I fail to see what is unjust about this. They move unused numbers from EB1 to EB2 because it works this way.
EB1 -> first level of preference
EB2 -> second level of preference
EB3 -> third level of preference
Now are you saying they should skip level 2 and drop some unused numbers from 1 to 3 directly? Why? That would actually be unjust.
To be fair, the US immigration system cannot be blamed because a lot of us desis have entered the queue.
more...
bombay707
11-16 09:02 AM
Go for it , change the job. They will not do nothing , can only threaten u. U paid the money for the H1. So u are in full control.
hair stock photo : Cute wedding
genscn
08-22 03:57 PM
will USCIS only issue EAD after I-140 gets approved in case where I-140 is pending during I-485 filing?
more...
pbojja
05-21 04:24 PM
My Wife's I-140 RD is May 9th 2007 and it was filed at Nebraska center.
Online Case status says that this case was transferred from Nebraska Center to Texas center in end of april 2008. So now this case will be processed using the original Reciept date or it will have a reciept date when this case was transferred? Current processing date is way past then her original RD.
We have to file for her H-1 B Extension and it is critical to get I-140 so that we can extend it for 3 years instead of one year.
Please let me know if someone has any info...
Technically it should be your original receipt date , thats means your wife 140 should be processed now but guess what that happens only if TSC finds your wifes file , not sure where the tranfer cases are stored , If they use computer they will definetly find the case but looks like they find the cases by boxes ... I m in the same boat and waiting for 140 approval after transfer to TSC , hope they find our box one day
Online Case status says that this case was transferred from Nebraska Center to Texas center in end of april 2008. So now this case will be processed using the original Reciept date or it will have a reciept date when this case was transferred? Current processing date is way past then her original RD.
We have to file for her H-1 B Extension and it is critical to get I-140 so that we can extend it for 3 years instead of one year.
Please let me know if someone has any info...
Technically it should be your original receipt date , thats means your wife 140 should be processed now but guess what that happens only if TSC finds your wifes file , not sure where the tranfer cases are stored , If they use computer they will definetly find the case but looks like they find the cases by boxes ... I m in the same boat and waiting for 140 approval after transfer to TSC , hope they find our box one day
hot Download Bell clip art(48 Kb)
cjagtap
07-20 04:12 PM
my application reached on 2 nd july at 10:23 am at TSC.no check cashed yet
more...
house quot;cross wedding hands clip-artquot;
nixstor
08-22 01:26 PM
unless I am egregiously mistaken, I 140 is totally employers and not employee's. How can you invoke FOIA on that? I mean freedom of info doesnt mean a breach of privacy or disclose "compny/personal" documentation.
tattoo Wedding Bell Clipart
longwait4gc
05-06 12:59 PM
Please go and take some english writting classes first. Your english is very poor. Taking some classes will help you in longterm. MBA in US is taught in english not telgu. An MBA from a shady univ is not going to help you anyway and USCIS is cracking down hard on bogus porting these days.
Can you take some writing classes first? Your English is full of typos and grammatical mistakes.
How do you know if that person knows Telugu?
Why do you have so much hate against Telugu people? Are you an anti-immigrant?
Can you take some writing classes first? Your English is full of typos and grammatical mistakes.
How do you know if that person knows Telugu?
Why do you have so much hate against Telugu people? Are you an anti-immigrant?
more...
pictures drawing of wedding bells,
reddymjm
01-21 02:43 PM
Only way is Visa # recapture or USCIS Start interpreting the overflow rules as it was before 2007 or come up with some thing new to share between EB2/3.
dresses wedding bells clip art
saileshdude
07-04 12:22 PM
I have been a big fan of IV and have been a visitor to IV for a while. I now plan to become a volunteer and join my state chapter and also contribute in all possible ways to IV because I think IV is the best thing to happen to this community.
Dear gurus - here is my issue and I need some real concrete help.
I was working for a New Jersey based consulting company on a percentage basis ie 80/20 and all costs towards GC and h1b were by me. I found my own projects and negotiated my own billing rate.
I worked for this company for 3 years and filed for 485 in July 2007. I am EB2 India with a priority date of March 2nd, 2006. My 140 was approved in June, 2006.
In March, 2008 my project got over and I started looking for new projects. Market conditions forced me to take up a fulltime job using my EAD and I had to move into a fulltime job.
As it is safe past 180 days, I used AC21 portability and moved.
I had been having excellent relationship with my desi employer and in fact also payed up some money to the employer because the client did not pay for last 2 months of my project and my desi employer held me responsible as it was me who negotiated with the client and said it is my issue - for which I agreed.
I already sent a AC21 letter to USCIS through my Attorney - I am not sure if my file got updated.
My desi employer wants to withdraw the 140 petition now. He says, he cannot keep 140 petitions of employees who leave the organization and not on w2 and he will have "ability to pay issue"
I have heard horror stories of USCIS issuing denials and NOID because AC21 letter never reached the file even though it was sent in time and I guess this is exactly what my desi employer thinks - teach lesson by withdrawing 140.
I spoke to my Attorney and she says "your file may not be updated but we will keep a record that we sent" useful in case we want to respond to NOID or RFE.
Folks - please post your AC21 success/horror stories when previous employer withdrew the 140 petition.
What are my options to avoid a NOID or denial
Thanks in advance
I am in a similar situation , though not exactly the same. In my case I was laid off and my company is going to revoke the I-140 because the position is not there any more. I pleaded them not revoke the I-140 but they said they have to withdraw it as they do not want any liability. My company has about 30,000 employees. I also have the same question as to how I should avoid NOID or denial.
I have seen lot of people switch using AC21 but most of their employers do not revoke I-140. I have yet to see cases where a person's I-140 was actually revoked after 180 days and they were still safe and got their GC approved.
Dear gurus - here is my issue and I need some real concrete help.
I was working for a New Jersey based consulting company on a percentage basis ie 80/20 and all costs towards GC and h1b were by me. I found my own projects and negotiated my own billing rate.
I worked for this company for 3 years and filed for 485 in July 2007. I am EB2 India with a priority date of March 2nd, 2006. My 140 was approved in June, 2006.
In March, 2008 my project got over and I started looking for new projects. Market conditions forced me to take up a fulltime job using my EAD and I had to move into a fulltime job.
As it is safe past 180 days, I used AC21 portability and moved.
I had been having excellent relationship with my desi employer and in fact also payed up some money to the employer because the client did not pay for last 2 months of my project and my desi employer held me responsible as it was me who negotiated with the client and said it is my issue - for which I agreed.
I already sent a AC21 letter to USCIS through my Attorney - I am not sure if my file got updated.
My desi employer wants to withdraw the 140 petition now. He says, he cannot keep 140 petitions of employees who leave the organization and not on w2 and he will have "ability to pay issue"
I have heard horror stories of USCIS issuing denials and NOID because AC21 letter never reached the file even though it was sent in time and I guess this is exactly what my desi employer thinks - teach lesson by withdrawing 140.
I spoke to my Attorney and she says "your file may not be updated but we will keep a record that we sent" useful in case we want to respond to NOID or RFE.
Folks - please post your AC21 success/horror stories when previous employer withdrew the 140 petition.
What are my options to avoid a NOID or denial
Thanks in advance
I am in a similar situation , though not exactly the same. In my case I was laid off and my company is going to revoke the I-140 because the position is not there any more. I pleaded them not revoke the I-140 but they said they have to withdraw it as they do not want any liability. My company has about 30,000 employees. I also have the same question as to how I should avoid NOID or denial.
I have seen lot of people switch using AC21 but most of their employers do not revoke I-140. I have yet to see cases where a person's I-140 was actually revoked after 180 days and they were still safe and got their GC approved.
more...
makeup amused by wedding clip art
CADude
07-06 12:58 PM
Don't boil.. map_boiler. :D
CAdude, possibly you're the person in DENIAL mode. You are free to take the chill pill or any other pill you want (I am not seeking your advice for that purpose anyways). If you have a direct response to the point I made, feel free to respond, otherwise, please don't bother...
CAdude, possibly you're the person in DENIAL mode. You are free to take the chill pill or any other pill you want (I am not seeking your advice for that purpose anyways). If you have a direct response to the point I made, feel free to respond, otherwise, please don't bother...
girlfriend in home Wedding bells clip
alterego
10-05 02:40 PM
We have tried very hard to separate ourselves and not be a hostage of other issues. Now there is more awareness on the greencard issue being separate from H1B. There is also more awareness that Immigration problem is not just about Illegals. There are legal immigrants too in this country suffering.
Pls post letters to the editor. Last week we are able to get CNN correct their incorrect reporting of the rally due to effort from everyone on the forum.
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your coverage today about an issue that is critical to the growing high tech. economy in the USA. The issue about the need for expansion of highly skilled immigrant visas to sustain this high growth part of our economy is something that is gaining increasing acceptance from lawmakers.
Having reported on that however, you did both this debate and your readers a tremendous disservice by mentioning in the same paragraph that "In a poll 56% of Republicans earning more than $75,000 annually would "strongly" or "partially" agree with a candidate who would bar illegal immigrants from path to citizenship."
What was the relevance of this fact at that juncture of the piece considering you are discussing legal high-skilled immigration? I am sure you are aware that illegal immigration is not an issue in highly skilled immigration. Most people already realize there is opposition of republicans to illegal immigration, we saw the implosion of CIR on the senate floor this summer. The debate over immigration is a highly emotive one for the American public, the last thing they need is an influential newspaper such as yours associating these issues at a time when CIR is dormant. This is the type of reporting that can misguide the public.
Please correct this erroneous association which I suspect was an unintentional oversight given the impeccable journalistic reputation of your newspaper.
Pls post letters to the editor. Last week we are able to get CNN correct their incorrect reporting of the rally due to effort from everyone on the forum.
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your coverage today about an issue that is critical to the growing high tech. economy in the USA. The issue about the need for expansion of highly skilled immigrant visas to sustain this high growth part of our economy is something that is gaining increasing acceptance from lawmakers.
Having reported on that however, you did both this debate and your readers a tremendous disservice by mentioning in the same paragraph that "In a poll 56% of Republicans earning more than $75,000 annually would "strongly" or "partially" agree with a candidate who would bar illegal immigrants from path to citizenship."
What was the relevance of this fact at that juncture of the piece considering you are discussing legal high-skilled immigration? I am sure you are aware that illegal immigration is not an issue in highly skilled immigration. Most people already realize there is opposition of republicans to illegal immigration, we saw the implosion of CIR on the senate floor this summer. The debate over immigration is a highly emotive one for the American public, the last thing they need is an influential newspaper such as yours associating these issues at a time when CIR is dormant. This is the type of reporting that can misguide the public.
Please correct this erroneous association which I suspect was an unintentional oversight given the impeccable journalistic reputation of your newspaper.
hairstyles Bell clip art
chanduv23
10-09 02:09 PM
All the "I will try to make it" will be there. People like to play it safe always, thats why they choose that option.
reddog
01-27 10:45 PM
It is unlawful for an alien admitted on a non-immigrant visa to own a firearm(with one exception).
So, if you want to own a gun, read on....
The case where this 18 USC 922(g)(5)(B) was mentioned elaborately was United States vs ELRAWY.
And it clearly is re-affirmed what is stated in the law on Unlawful acts(Sec 922) for FIREARMS, that '(g)It shall be unlawful for any person - (5) who, being an alien - (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
The case: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/....04-20123.html (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/448/448.F3d.309.04-20123.html)
The case clearly notes that a person on Adjustment on status remains on the last admitted visa status until the Adjustment of Status is approved. So there is no ambiguity there.
A person even after he has applied for adjustment of status can remain in the country, but for ownership of a gun, he falls back on his visa status.
However, the law clearly states an exception for the person who is an alien that is on a non-immigrant visa - the (y)(2) part:
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas. - (2) Exceptions. - Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that
alien is -
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
Link: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+535+12++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28922%29%29%3ACITE%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+535+12++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28922%29%29%3ACITE%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20)
In short, apply and get a Hunting Licence from the State DNR., take the safety courses and then apply for the State firearm ID.
And, if your licensing authority knows about this exception(hunting) in the law, they will issue you a license.
If not, they will reject your application. If so, You might want to bring this section to their notice.
So, if you want to own a gun, read on....
The case where this 18 USC 922(g)(5)(B) was mentioned elaborately was United States vs ELRAWY.
And it clearly is re-affirmed what is stated in the law on Unlawful acts(Sec 922) for FIREARMS, that '(g)It shall be unlawful for any person - (5) who, being an alien - (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
The case: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/....04-20123.html (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/448/448.F3d.309.04-20123.html)
The case clearly notes that a person on Adjustment on status remains on the last admitted visa status until the Adjustment of Status is approved. So there is no ambiguity there.
A person even after he has applied for adjustment of status can remain in the country, but for ownership of a gun, he falls back on his visa status.
However, the law clearly states an exception for the person who is an alien that is on a non-immigrant visa - the (y)(2) part:
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas. - (2) Exceptions. - Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that
alien is -
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
Link: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+535+12++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28922%29%29%3ACITE%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+535+12++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28922%29%29%3ACITE%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20)
In short, apply and get a Hunting Licence from the State DNR., take the safety courses and then apply for the State firearm ID.
And, if your licensing authority knows about this exception(hunting) in the law, they will issue you a license.
If not, they will reject your application. If so, You might want to bring this section to their notice.
gc_mania_03
08-16 12:40 AM
links from "adekhne" of immigration portal regarding this case.
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=154533
http://www.murthy.com/Chatdb.asp?Search=&Type=citizenship&page=3
I think 1 year or 6 months is anyone's guess. One can always argue why it should be just 6 months and not one year.
I think if anyone knows of any precedence where citizenship was rejected due to this very reason, that would be a good example to base the discussion on.
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=154533
http://www.murthy.com/Chatdb.asp?Search=&Type=citizenship&page=3
I think 1 year or 6 months is anyone's guess. One can always argue why it should be just 6 months and not one year.
I think if anyone knows of any precedence where citizenship was rejected due to this very reason, that would be a good example to base the discussion on.