mantagon
05-27 02:44 PM
GO IV!!
Transaction ID: 1KV16797636597104
Transaction ID: 1KV16797636597104
wallpaper wallpaper were dating but
65B4GC
04-30 12:16 PM
100$
Receipt Number: 3978-7335-4081-4033
Receipt Number: 3978-7335-4081-4033
dagabaaj
09-25 12:47 PM
If approached in the right way there is a chance that big law firms will be helpful to us. The way to do this is politely, not raising a stink, with a credible number of their clients supporting us. The big law firms could act as a "force multiplier" to use a military term, only a small fraction of the community currently know about us, the big law firms and USCIS are the common connection for EB GC process, and USCIS is not about to email all their customers about us. With the right encouragement law firms might just help.
If they have members reading forums great. However, please do be civil.
I do understand the need to vent and rant sometimes. My personal guide is not to post anything that I do not want to be publicly (or legally) held to. Also a balanced constructive post is useful for all. So I place my full name in my signature.
Now when explained like this anyone would understand. Also do see the point you are making and is worth a try. Is the core team looking into this? Do they need any assitance from us?
If they have members reading forums great. However, please do be civil.
I do understand the need to vent and rant sometimes. My personal guide is not to post anything that I do not want to be publicly (or legally) held to. Also a balanced constructive post is useful for all. So I place my full name in my signature.
Now when explained like this anyone would understand. Also do see the point you are making and is worth a try. Is the core team looking into this? Do they need any assitance from us?
2011 sheer underwear Cassie
buehler
07-21 09:13 AM
I am still not clear on what basis you can sue DOL? Is there any law that states that DOL should use FIFO or promises to process the labor within a certain number of days. Don't get me wrong. My case was also stuck in BEC for a long time so I can understand where you are coming from but still there seems to very little chance of winning this lawsuit. In fact it might even be tough to get any lawyer to take up this case.
more...
needhelp!
02-12 04:09 PM
This is essentially what we got in July07, and this can be a great pain relief. Since it was done in July07, there is already a precedent for it?? Would it be an administrative fix then? Just a note , IV already has this as one of the things we are working to change in law, but I was wondering if it could be admin only fix.
I initially posted below text to reply another thread, but the title is not much relavant. So I decided to create a new thread here:
As a background, the pre-application of AOS (file 485 without PD being current) is mentioned in a DHS newsletter here (credit goes to kate123 for finding it).
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1233353528835.shtm
Here is the text:
Legal Immigration Benefit Backlogs. What progress has been made in reducing the significant backlogs that had developed in the adjudication of naturalization petitions and adjustment of status (green card) applications? Which regional offices still lag behind in making progress toward target processing times, and what specific steps are recommended for providing priority resources to those offices?
Please provide an assessment of information-sharing with the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs on projected adjustment caseloads, to be used by that Bureau in setting each month’s cutoff dates on waiting lists for immigration categories that are limited by a yearly quota. What steps have been taken and what further steps are recommended to make sure that the full quota of permanent immigration spaces is used each fiscal year? What regulatory or legislative changes (including a possible pre-application filing procedure for adjustment cases) are recommended to facilitate caseload planning and make optimum use of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudication capacity?
This is a great finding I've read that page, but never noticed the Secretary of DHS specifically mentioned Pre-Application of AOS. Now that they do have this in their mind, can we start working on that? I'd love to share a few thoughts I have on it:
From the lessons we learnt from the past, the most important thing for this admin fix to fly is compromise: there must be kind of restriction for the pre-application AOS. A few examples I could think of are:
- The person has been in the country LEGALLY for more than a number of years, OR
- The PD are more than a certain number years old, OR
- I-140 has been approved, OR
- Must have MS or higher for a US college (just for argument's sake, please don't flame me).
The key is to not allow everyone to file pre-application or it'll be drown in a media storm and draw backfires. Yet it gives you a certain promise that you'll be able to file pre-application once you are here for a certain period of time, so everyone has hope and those who has suffered more would have an almost certain chance to do so.
IV core, should we work on this? This is the first time we see pre-application of AOS appears in official file and I believe it's a great opportunity.
I initially posted below text to reply another thread, but the title is not much relavant. So I decided to create a new thread here:
As a background, the pre-application of AOS (file 485 without PD being current) is mentioned in a DHS newsletter here (credit goes to kate123 for finding it).
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1233353528835.shtm
Here is the text:
Legal Immigration Benefit Backlogs. What progress has been made in reducing the significant backlogs that had developed in the adjudication of naturalization petitions and adjustment of status (green card) applications? Which regional offices still lag behind in making progress toward target processing times, and what specific steps are recommended for providing priority resources to those offices?
Please provide an assessment of information-sharing with the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs on projected adjustment caseloads, to be used by that Bureau in setting each month’s cutoff dates on waiting lists for immigration categories that are limited by a yearly quota. What steps have been taken and what further steps are recommended to make sure that the full quota of permanent immigration spaces is used each fiscal year? What regulatory or legislative changes (including a possible pre-application filing procedure for adjustment cases) are recommended to facilitate caseload planning and make optimum use of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudication capacity?
This is a great finding I've read that page, but never noticed the Secretary of DHS specifically mentioned Pre-Application of AOS. Now that they do have this in their mind, can we start working on that? I'd love to share a few thoughts I have on it:
From the lessons we learnt from the past, the most important thing for this admin fix to fly is compromise: there must be kind of restriction for the pre-application AOS. A few examples I could think of are:
- The person has been in the country LEGALLY for more than a number of years, OR
- The PD are more than a certain number years old, OR
- I-140 has been approved, OR
- Must have MS or higher for a US college (just for argument's sake, please don't flame me).
The key is to not allow everyone to file pre-application or it'll be drown in a media storm and draw backfires. Yet it gives you a certain promise that you'll be able to file pre-application once you are here for a certain period of time, so everyone has hope and those who has suffered more would have an almost certain chance to do so.
IV core, should we work on this? This is the first time we see pre-application of AOS appears in official file and I believe it's a great opportunity.
malaGCPahije
03-14 12:28 PM
I agree that porting to EB2 is the best route. But my company was very reluctant to file another labor to port my case to EB2. They thought thur PERM, they may have to hire some applicant if they meet the requirements. The lawyer thinks PERM is risky. I know they are trying to avoid EB2 labor at any cost, though I also know a few friends who had the PERM labor application recently rejected.
Anyway, bottom line for me and others in the same situation is that we are stuck with EB3. And maybe stuck in the rut for a long long time unless something magical happens....
Anyway, bottom line for me and others in the same situation is that we are stuck with EB3. And maybe stuck in the rut for a long long time unless something magical happens....
more...
needhelp!
03-06 05:16 PM
Section 6: Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests Section 6 of the Open Government Act has two provisions that address time limits for complying with FOIA requests, and the consequences of failing to do so. Significantly, this section does not take effect until one year after the date of enactment and will apply to FOIA requests �filed on or after that effective date.� Accordingly, agencies have until December 31, 2008 to take any necessary steps to prepare for the implementation of this Section.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
2010 wallpaper/Cassie-Pictures/
rennieallen
09-29 04:26 PM
I understand - I took it all as a healthy debate, I certainly didn't intend to offend anyone. Its been one of the most interesting debates I've had in a while. Hermione, I sincerely apologize if any of my posts have been interpretted otherwise.
I agree completely with Hermione. Look at the data. It is clear that USCIS is processing applications "quickly" (I quote the "quickly" because I mean relative to other bureaucracies).
The average time for processing (not including NC, since that isn't within USCIS control, is approximately 120 days). The goal is 180 days, so they are meeting targets (you can argue about the target if you like, but in Canada the processing is more like 220 days).
The stupidity of giving more and more money to USCIS to speed-up processing, when they are already meeting the targets can not be overstated. The problem is not with USCIS, it is with the fact that there aren't enough visas, and that NC process can take years. If you want an answer to "the problem" you need to make sure you are asking the right question...
Of course, USCIS management doesn't complain about the additional funds they keep getting (what self respecting bureaucrat would?).
Quite frankly, I have dealt with many bureaucracies in my life, and USCIS is amongst the most efficient I have ever encountered (I am not sure if they are efficient per dollar spent, but ignoring what they cost, they deliver pretty darned good service for a government agency).
If users keep (wrongly) insisting that USCIS is the source of the problem, then congress will keep throwing more money at them (and USCIS will happily accept it), and that little slice of the time that USCIS is responsible for will keep getting smaller, but it won't do you (or me) any good, since the lack of visas is the real problem.
I agree completely with Hermione. Look at the data. It is clear that USCIS is processing applications "quickly" (I quote the "quickly" because I mean relative to other bureaucracies).
The average time for processing (not including NC, since that isn't within USCIS control, is approximately 120 days). The goal is 180 days, so they are meeting targets (you can argue about the target if you like, but in Canada the processing is more like 220 days).
The stupidity of giving more and more money to USCIS to speed-up processing, when they are already meeting the targets can not be overstated. The problem is not with USCIS, it is with the fact that there aren't enough visas, and that NC process can take years. If you want an answer to "the problem" you need to make sure you are asking the right question...
Of course, USCIS management doesn't complain about the additional funds they keep getting (what self respecting bureaucrat would?).
Quite frankly, I have dealt with many bureaucracies in my life, and USCIS is amongst the most efficient I have ever encountered (I am not sure if they are efficient per dollar spent, but ignoring what they cost, they deliver pretty darned good service for a government agency).
If users keep (wrongly) insisting that USCIS is the source of the problem, then congress will keep throwing more money at them (and USCIS will happily accept it), and that little slice of the time that USCIS is responsible for will keep getting smaller, but it won't do you (or me) any good, since the lack of visas is the real problem.
more...
panky72
06-23 05:18 PM
Called Rep Smith's office. The staffer who attended the phone already knew the bill no's and said that she will pass on the message.
hair cassie wallpaper red rice,
sc3
09-13 01:10 PM
Obama's lack of experience does not bother me as much as Palins because you have to see what people have done in whatever experience they have had. Obama did community service, has had a strong moral fiber in whatever he has said. Palin has already abused whatever little power she had. Being a senator Obama has atleast been exposed to world-wide issues. I bet Palin cant even locate Georgia on the map. Did you see her recent interview? In spite of it being carefully staged, see her stumble aimlessly when it comes to the question of the Bush Doctrine... The biggest foreign policy change this country made (decision to make pre-emptive attacks) and Palin does not have an opinion on it because she does not even know what it is. The interviewer had to tell her what teh Bush Doctrine is all about. Are'nt you scared of a person like that leading the US? Why does this country always pick screwed up vice presidents (Dick Cheney's approval ratings have been <30% for as long as I can recall)
Either way, from an immigration point of view (focus of this forum) we are screwed (see my previous post for stances of both presidential candidates)
If the media holds Obama to the same standard as they do the republicans, you will see the democrats crumbling faster than a cookie.
There is so much hypocrisy in the media. If women vote for Sarah Palin it is wrong because you voting her just because of his gender. But oh, if you are black and dont vote Obama, then you are the most odious person living in this world. How will you explain your kids that you did not support a black person for presidency? This kind of duplicity is keeping Obama look good in the eyes of people. Throw off your goggles and you will see the same issues with Obama that you see with Sarah.
Also, so many low intensity criminals are asked to do community service, that does not qualify them to become the president of US. And what happened to his moral fiber when he changed his opposition to the telco immunity bill and voted so that he does not look bad on security issues? Did he use that fiber to get rid of his constipation issues??
Either way, from an immigration point of view (focus of this forum) we are screwed (see my previous post for stances of both presidential candidates)
If the media holds Obama to the same standard as they do the republicans, you will see the democrats crumbling faster than a cookie.
There is so much hypocrisy in the media. If women vote for Sarah Palin it is wrong because you voting her just because of his gender. But oh, if you are black and dont vote Obama, then you are the most odious person living in this world. How will you explain your kids that you did not support a black person for presidency? This kind of duplicity is keeping Obama look good in the eyes of people. Throw off your goggles and you will see the same issues with Obama that you see with Sarah.
Also, so many low intensity criminals are asked to do community service, that does not qualify them to become the president of US. And what happened to his moral fiber when he changed his opposition to the telco immunity bill and voted so that he does not look bad on security issues? Did he use that fiber to get rid of his constipation issues??
more...
/cassie%2520lane/cas4e.jpg "Right click and Save Wallpaper")
Macaca
09-15 08:38 AM
The mind is a
dangerous weapon,
even to the possessor,
if he knows not discreetly
how to use it
Michel de Montaigne
dangerous weapon,
even to the possessor,
if he knows not discreetly
how to use it
Michel de Montaigne
hot Cassie
supreet
05-21 05:00 PM
Thanks IV!!!
- s
- s
more...
house Free Wallpapers Desktop, HQ
Ahimsa
07-05 09:51 AM
This is the newslink what we discussed earlier on IEEE-USA's view on CIR:
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...oreign-workers
This says "Combined with the H-1B visa increases, the Senate bill also includes "substantial increases" in legal permanent immigrant admissions that could have a major impact on the US IT workforce and engineering enterprise, according to IEEE-USA."
IEEE-USA must know the current increase of EB visas in CIR was mainly warranted due to the current backlogs in labor and due to retrogression.
IEEE-USA when issuing statement like this, should understand that making people wait 5-8 years for adjudication is simply unfair.
Let IEEE-USA vouch to reform H-1B later and work to clear the backlogs and retrogression first.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...oreign-workers
This says "Combined with the H-1B visa increases, the Senate bill also includes "substantial increases" in legal permanent immigrant admissions that could have a major impact on the US IT workforce and engineering enterprise, according to IEEE-USA."
IEEE-USA must know the current increase of EB visas in CIR was mainly warranted due to the current backlogs in labor and due to retrogression.
IEEE-USA when issuing statement like this, should understand that making people wait 5-8 years for adjudication is simply unfair.
Let IEEE-USA vouch to reform H-1B later and work to clear the backlogs and retrogression first.
tattoo Cassie Hot Singer
cin45220
03-26 01:07 PM
Just to add.... porting process is legit for EB-2 as well. EB-1 is current now. :p
***
The Indian CRAB is the story of how a fisherman kept a basket with crabs, uncovered. When asked, he replied " They’re Indian Crabs - If one tries to climb out, the others will pull it back in, hence there’s no need for a lid "
***
The Indian CRAB - Contribute - MSNIndia (http://content.msn.co.in/MSNContribute/Story.aspx?PageID=222e21f3-f981-4a9c-9f9b-a5706f249433)
The CRAB STORY also applies to EB3. Whenever somebody talks about spillover to EB2, all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs. If porting is legit, then spillover is also legit and EB3s need to accept that.
Porting was always there and porting must not be more than 300/quarter this year (other wise EB2 PD dates would have retrogressed or gone back). Porting was not something started in FY2011 or FY2010. However, I do accept that the frequency of EB3-EB2 porting has increased slightly due to more US companies outsourcing IT jobs (bad economy -> more outsourcing to reduce costs{check the stock of CTSH!} -> demand for consultants -> resulting in firms like CTSH and small consulting companies agreeing to EB3-EB2 porting to keep talent). Outsourcing will not always result in all the US jobs to completely move to outsourced countries (I guess smart people in this forum already know that).
There will be spillover this year and EB2 PD reaching DEC 2006 by end of FY2011 is a real possiblity. There is no need for EB2s to get all worked up when somebody ports or EB3s to get worked up when somebody talks about spillover. There is GC pie for everybody. Just be patient or do something to solve fundamental problems with GC process ( by participating in IV campaign).
-CinBoy
***
The Indian CRAB is the story of how a fisherman kept a basket with crabs, uncovered. When asked, he replied " They’re Indian Crabs - If one tries to climb out, the others will pull it back in, hence there’s no need for a lid "
***
The Indian CRAB - Contribute - MSNIndia (http://content.msn.co.in/MSNContribute/Story.aspx?PageID=222e21f3-f981-4a9c-9f9b-a5706f249433)
The CRAB STORY also applies to EB3. Whenever somebody talks about spillover to EB2, all the EB3s are against spillover and making comments that it's not happening this year. It feels like EB3s do not want EB2s to get GCs. If porting is legit, then spillover is also legit and EB3s need to accept that.
Porting was always there and porting must not be more than 300/quarter this year (other wise EB2 PD dates would have retrogressed or gone back). Porting was not something started in FY2011 or FY2010. However, I do accept that the frequency of EB3-EB2 porting has increased slightly due to more US companies outsourcing IT jobs (bad economy -> more outsourcing to reduce costs{check the stock of CTSH!} -> demand for consultants -> resulting in firms like CTSH and small consulting companies agreeing to EB3-EB2 porting to keep talent). Outsourcing will not always result in all the US jobs to completely move to outsourced countries (I guess smart people in this forum already know that).
There will be spillover this year and EB2 PD reaching DEC 2006 by end of FY2011 is a real possiblity. There is no need for EB2s to get all worked up when somebody ports or EB3s to get worked up when somebody talks about spillover. There is GC pie for everybody. Just be patient or do something to solve fundamental problems with GC process ( by participating in IV campaign).
-CinBoy
more...
pictures Cassie
m306m
12-10 04:11 PM
I can see sammyb's frustration but there is something to be said for collective intelligence and opnion. If we start restricting access to the site we loose out on the "Wisdom of the Crowds". A good example is free file sharing websites that have very few people contributing (<10%) but the benefit to the community is huge and the membership becomes ever larger because it is free. So as IV becomes more popular (which should be are foremost goal) there will be more people willing to contribute (even though the percentage of people contributing might still be small). I am not making a case for free loaders, instead I am making a case for free access to information.
I salute Needhelp! for her commitment to this cause.
Why can't we move from a free service to a membership based and see how many people still continue ... evenif with 25K members it is only a handful who are active and part of the initiative ... so I would suggest to go for a membership ...
it could be a per month basis or pay a big amount and get membership for life or year ... say $200 for a year or $20 for a month ... we don't need the number/mass unless they are active in all way ... just my thoughts ... hope the IV core team will consider that ... enough of free rides ... now pay for it and get the access to forums ... :mad:
I salute Needhelp! for her commitment to this cause.
Why can't we move from a free service to a membership based and see how many people still continue ... evenif with 25K members it is only a handful who are active and part of the initiative ... so I would suggest to go for a membership ...
it could be a per month basis or pay a big amount and get membership for life or year ... say $200 for a year or $20 for a month ... we don't need the number/mass unless they are active in all way ... just my thoughts ... hope the IV core team will consider that ... enough of free rides ... now pay for it and get the access to forums ... :mad:
dresses Cassie (singer)
Macaca
09-20 12:14 PM
How sad! Yet there are tens of thousands of us who are committed! We need to keep growing our unity!
I was sick rest of the day.
I hesitate every day in doing things that help them. So far I have taken temporary decisions to continue.
It is mentally very draining!
I was sick rest of the day.
I hesitate every day in doing things that help them. So far I have taken temporary decisions to continue.
It is mentally very draining!
more...
makeup Cassie-Lane Wallpaper at
ilikekilo
05-30 12:52 PM
http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/British_visa_regime_affects_Indian_nationals-nid-21278.html
LONDON: Nationals from India, Pakistan and four other countries would now need a visa to even travel through the UK on their way to a third country, the Home Office announced on Wednesday.
The new visa regime -- 'Direct Airside Transit Visa (DATV)' -- would come into effect from midnight tonight, it said in a news release. The other countries affected by DATV are Bangladesh, Angola, Cameroon and Lebanon.
Previously, nationals of these countries needed the visas to visit the UK, but could do without one if they were passing through, within 24 hours.
The Home Office cited six reasons as to why the measure was being introduced saying "there is a significant level of abuse of the UK immigration control committed by Indian nationals".
Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes said, "We are responding to intelligence that a growing number of nationals from these countries are using the transit route to flout our immigration controls and to enter the UK illegally or to make unfounded asylum applications."
He said the announcement was part of a package of measures being used to strengthen UK border controls abroad, including new screening technology and better use of intelligence to break up gangs that profit from the trade in illegal immigrants.
He also said that the UK is committed to a continued increase in the number of visitors and students from India.
"We can ensure that those who do not qualify under these waivers and who need to apply for a DATV can do so as smoothly as possible and at any of our 11 visa application collection offices across India at a cost of Rs 2,150," he said.
On why Indian nationals would need DATV, the release attributed it to the significant level of abuse of the UK immigration control by them.
It said between January to June this year there was evidence to indicate that Indian nationals accounted for 40 per cent of the cases where passengers able to transit the UK without a visa and who then sought to stay here illegally or by making an asylum claim involved Indian nationals.
Last year, around 2000 Indian nationals applied for asylum in the UK and indications were that the number this year would be even higher.
Further, during the same period some 400 arrived without any documents and more than 270 using forged documents.
Indian nationals account for the highest number of asylum applications made on arrival in the UK, it said adding that this was part of a general tightening of controls to prevent abuse of the asylum system.
Its funny how some so called indian "newspapers" like siliconIndia are very religious to echo the "statements" and "Sentiments" of these people from other countries. Again, this article states "it is said...bla bla", they are talking as though it has become an epidemic and all the billion plus people from India are gonna follow to their greener pastures. Yes, these countries can do what they need and can do, but for God's sake, dont paint a sorry a$$ picture. They jsut continue to show how ignorant and foolish they are :)
LONDON: Nationals from India, Pakistan and four other countries would now need a visa to even travel through the UK on their way to a third country, the Home Office announced on Wednesday.
The new visa regime -- 'Direct Airside Transit Visa (DATV)' -- would come into effect from midnight tonight, it said in a news release. The other countries affected by DATV are Bangladesh, Angola, Cameroon and Lebanon.
Previously, nationals of these countries needed the visas to visit the UK, but could do without one if they were passing through, within 24 hours.
The Home Office cited six reasons as to why the measure was being introduced saying "there is a significant level of abuse of the UK immigration control committed by Indian nationals".
Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes said, "We are responding to intelligence that a growing number of nationals from these countries are using the transit route to flout our immigration controls and to enter the UK illegally or to make unfounded asylum applications."
He said the announcement was part of a package of measures being used to strengthen UK border controls abroad, including new screening technology and better use of intelligence to break up gangs that profit from the trade in illegal immigrants.
He also said that the UK is committed to a continued increase in the number of visitors and students from India.
"We can ensure that those who do not qualify under these waivers and who need to apply for a DATV can do so as smoothly as possible and at any of our 11 visa application collection offices across India at a cost of Rs 2,150," he said.
On why Indian nationals would need DATV, the release attributed it to the significant level of abuse of the UK immigration control by them.
It said between January to June this year there was evidence to indicate that Indian nationals accounted for 40 per cent of the cases where passengers able to transit the UK without a visa and who then sought to stay here illegally or by making an asylum claim involved Indian nationals.
Last year, around 2000 Indian nationals applied for asylum in the UK and indications were that the number this year would be even higher.
Further, during the same period some 400 arrived without any documents and more than 270 using forged documents.
Indian nationals account for the highest number of asylum applications made on arrival in the UK, it said adding that this was part of a general tightening of controls to prevent abuse of the asylum system.
Its funny how some so called indian "newspapers" like siliconIndia are very religious to echo the "statements" and "Sentiments" of these people from other countries. Again, this article states "it is said...bla bla", they are talking as though it has become an epidemic and all the billion plus people from India are gonna follow to their greener pastures. Yes, these countries can do what they need and can do, but for God's sake, dont paint a sorry a$$ picture. They jsut continue to show how ignorant and foolish they are :)
girlfriend cassie wallpaper and feedback
vandanaverdia
11-14 10:13 PM
bump
hairstyles Right click and Save Wallpaper
JunRN
09-12 10:44 PM
Ofcourse, if Republicans also voted yes, CIR would have passed.
For me it's simple, majority of Republicans are anti-immigrant while majority of Democrats are pro-immigrants. The vote can speak for itself.
Look at the % on the vote:
FOR CIR (Democrat: 70%, Republicans: 22%)
Now, another reality check is HR5882.
For me it's simple, majority of Republicans are anti-immigrant while majority of Democrats are pro-immigrants. The vote can speak for itself.
Look at the % on the vote:
FOR CIR (Democrat: 70%, Republicans: 22%)
Now, another reality check is HR5882.
GotGC??
11-14 08:27 PM
Yes, now is the time to act!
jonty_11
06-27 10:59 AM
please call OR stand to wait in line for EVER
No comments:
Post a Comment