jkays94
10-03 12:49 PM
Its a pity when it is obvious through numerous congressional debates who the culprits are in blocking EB friendly legislation. Here we are again with the EB recapture bill and who again is blocking it? The New York times identifies them by name and nowhere does it mention Durbin. Its thus is beyond comprehension when unfounded future claims of doom, apprehension and fear are spread without the basis and contrary to facts presently before us. Instead one needs to be more concerned about the possible reelection of the two below and several of their sidekicks:
Jeff Sessions (R)
Steve King (R)
A House bill that could recapture an estimated 550,000 lost visas, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, has been moving slowly through the committee process despite the best efforts of members like Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, to sabotage it with ridiculously restrictive amendments.
In the Senate, Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is insisting that a visa-recapturing amendment be added to a bill reauthorizing E-Verify, the federal database program to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. For this, he has endured an onslaught of criticism from nativist groups and colleagues, like Jeff Sessions of Alabama. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri2.html?ex=1380772800&en=282e9836144364be&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)
Jeff Sessions (R)
Steve King (R)
A House bill that could recapture an estimated 550,000 lost visas, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, has been moving slowly through the committee process despite the best efforts of members like Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, to sabotage it with ridiculously restrictive amendments.
In the Senate, Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is insisting that a visa-recapturing amendment be added to a bill reauthorizing E-Verify, the federal database program to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. For this, he has endured an onslaught of criticism from nativist groups and colleagues, like Jeff Sessions of Alabama. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri2.html?ex=1380772800&en=282e9836144364be&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)
wallpaper lank family tree template
gimme_GC2006
04-13 09:26 PM
Hi gimme_GC2006,
I am no expert in this matter but may be you should respond with all the info you have. Contact Number, Address, Supervisor Name, Phone Number etc - and a brief statement saying that the company does not exist anymore etc etc. If they want to -- they can track down your supervisor etc from the non-existent company if they want to verify your employment.
Again its best if you get help with a qualified attorney - (should'nt hurt to spend a few $$ more to have a peace of mind) plus yours is the only case of this type I am seeing on these boards so is a bit disconcerting...
All the best,
cinqsit
thanks for the suggestion..I dont have those details..for now its all good..but I was thinking one more time, I will hire an attorney.. :)
I am no expert in this matter but may be you should respond with all the info you have. Contact Number, Address, Supervisor Name, Phone Number etc - and a brief statement saying that the company does not exist anymore etc etc. If they want to -- they can track down your supervisor etc from the non-existent company if they want to verify your employment.
Again its best if you get help with a qualified attorney - (should'nt hurt to spend a few $$ more to have a peace of mind) plus yours is the only case of this type I am seeing on these boards so is a bit disconcerting...
All the best,
cinqsit
thanks for the suggestion..I dont have those details..for now its all good..but I was thinking one more time, I will hire an attorney.. :)
chanduv23
03-24 11:28 AM
Its a problem when we dont speak out on our issues - nobody understands our pain and.
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Remember the GREED brought American economy down.
Totally agree - but also remember - it is everybody's greed. During the Y2K days, consulates were approving visas left and right, I there used to be a one page LCA with H1b and I remember those companies were under pressure to bring people in - had clerks doing immigration paperwork in tonnes and then getting approvals at rapid pace.
If immigration always be of same standard - with standard measures to weed out resume fakers and fraud - good people won't get affected.
If someone wants to go back in life and point at things in past - they must go back and see if they always did the right thing.
Thats why I do not fully agree with UN. I agree USCIS are going tough - but not all companies or all immigrants are fraud because they lobbied or because economy is down or because anti immigrants are influencing them
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Remember the GREED brought American economy down.
Totally agree - but also remember - it is everybody's greed. During the Y2K days, consulates were approving visas left and right, I there used to be a one page LCA with H1b and I remember those companies were under pressure to bring people in - had clerks doing immigration paperwork in tonnes and then getting approvals at rapid pace.
If immigration always be of same standard - with standard measures to weed out resume fakers and fraud - good people won't get affected.
If someone wants to go back in life and point at things in past - they must go back and see if they always did the right thing.
Thats why I do not fully agree with UN. I agree USCIS are going tough - but not all companies or all immigrants are fraud because they lobbied or because economy is down or because anti immigrants are influencing them
2011 lank family tree template
willwin
07-13 11:21 AM
Here is my 2 cents worth...
Pappu, are you saying that whatever initiative that IV has taken now to address recapturing (HR5882), per country limit removal and STEM are GOOD ENOUGH as long as we have mass support and no further effort required?
Well, If we are not having enough support, I am not sure how much of that we could change.
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
Pappu, are you saying that whatever initiative that IV has taken now to address recapturing (HR5882), per country limit removal and STEM are GOOD ENOUGH as long as we have mass support and no further effort required?
Well, If we are not having enough support, I am not sure how much of that we could change.
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
more...
Macaca
05-02 05:38 PM
Don't kowtow to China now (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-kowtow-to-china-now/story-fn59niix-1226047967727) By Paul Dibb | The Australian
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
Marphad
12-17 03:31 PM
People:
I went back and read some of posts from Marphad. "Marphad" hold very Extremist Communal Views not appropriate for this forum. He has given so called "RATIONAL" explanation in SUPPORT of TERRORISTS involved in Gujarat massacres. I think he is holds some rational views and I try to see if I dig his personnel information and inform relevant authorities. He is crying out to be spanked
I will provide you whatever the information you want ;). I never had one sided communical views. Yes I hate people who directly or indirectly support terrorism. That includes people like Antulay (you are not in that list FYI :)).
I went back and read some of posts from Marphad. "Marphad" hold very Extremist Communal Views not appropriate for this forum. He has given so called "RATIONAL" explanation in SUPPORT of TERRORISTS involved in Gujarat massacres. I think he is holds some rational views and I try to see if I dig his personnel information and inform relevant authorities. He is crying out to be spanked
I will provide you whatever the information you want ;). I never had one sided communical views. Yes I hate people who directly or indirectly support terrorism. That includes people like Antulay (you are not in that list FYI :)).
more...
xyzgc
12-28 04:05 PM
So Mr. Trained Reservist,
Let's say the war is won in 15-20 days based on your expert knowledge, what is next? India occupies Pakistan? and acquires 160 million muslim population along with Talibans? You think that will end terrorism and riots in India?
Oh BTW, there is another trained reservist in the history who claimed Iraq war would be won in two weeks. Do you know who he is? Hint: he became the worst president in the history of the US.
The war was won in two weeks. Americans have traditionally poured billions of dollars in rebuilding nations that they have destroyed. What was unexpected was the insurgencies and the sectarian violence, which Iraqis themselves are guilty of. The war went horribly wrong because of the atrocious cost of the war and the drain on the failing economy. Saddam was an evil dictator and the fact that there is so much insurgency is a clear indication that Iraq was the hotbed of terror.
That is why its taking longer than expected.
If you want to debate on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, read the kind of savages the Japanese were. Read about comfort women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women. It will make you really uncomfortable. Worse, till date the Japs are unapologetic saying there is no credible proof that this ever existed. Also, read about Bangladesh war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War where 200k women were repeatedly raped giving birth to thousands of war babies, who were exported to orphanages in Europe and America.
Let's say the war is won in 15-20 days based on your expert knowledge, what is next? India occupies Pakistan? and acquires 160 million muslim population along with Talibans? You think that will end terrorism and riots in India?
Oh BTW, there is another trained reservist in the history who claimed Iraq war would be won in two weeks. Do you know who he is? Hint: he became the worst president in the history of the US.
The war was won in two weeks. Americans have traditionally poured billions of dollars in rebuilding nations that they have destroyed. What was unexpected was the insurgencies and the sectarian violence, which Iraqis themselves are guilty of. The war went horribly wrong because of the atrocious cost of the war and the drain on the failing economy. Saddam was an evil dictator and the fact that there is so much insurgency is a clear indication that Iraq was the hotbed of terror.
That is why its taking longer than expected.
If you want to debate on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, read the kind of savages the Japanese were. Read about comfort women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women. It will make you really uncomfortable. Worse, till date the Japs are unapologetic saying there is no credible proof that this ever existed. Also, read about Bangladesh war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War where 200k women were repeatedly raped giving birth to thousands of war babies, who were exported to orphanages in Europe and America.
2010 house lank family tree
unseenguy
06-12 12:50 AM
I am in SF Bay area.
I would say WAIT and prices will become affordable here as well.
People who bought these 700K+ houses were not necessarily richer than you and me.
ARMs with low or zero down payments did the trick.
Save for the down payment and wait. You will get a good house at affordable price in 1-2 years.
California is going to be bankrupt soon. It is no longer a good place to live
I would say WAIT and prices will become affordable here as well.
People who bought these 700K+ houses were not necessarily richer than you and me.
ARMs with low or zero down payments did the trick.
Save for the down payment and wait. You will get a good house at affordable price in 1-2 years.
California is going to be bankrupt soon. It is no longer a good place to live
more...
GCOP
07-13 09:36 AM
Does IV want to change the format of the letter ? If so, modified letter from IV will be appreciated. I thank pani_6 and IV's effort to address the EB-3 situation. If necessary, IV can also arrange meeting with Department of State for discussion of EB-3 Visa allotment and delays. EB-3 situation is really dier. IV is requested to please arrange meeting with DOS.
hair lank family tree template
milind70
08-03 09:22 PM
Do you really think they would send the G-325a to the consulate? Do the consulates keep all the records? For how long? I heard from immigrationportal, somebody said they only send G-325a to the consulate if one applied a visa within one year prior to AOS application. Can anyone confirm this?
If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.
This is really a grey area, as per the field manual visa's issued by consulate/embassies less than a year are verified or checked. Less than a year is because the dept of states purges data a year old thats why less than a year time frame they send the copy to consulate for checks . But the grey area I am talking about is ,lets say i applied for 485 in july 2007 and i got my H1 stamped in sept 2006 by the time my case is processed it will be most probably oct 2007 (liek data fed in etc) now in oct 2007 when they process the checks DOS would have purged the data ,so in turn when they process your checks yourr visa issuance date shoudl be over a year as the consulates and embassies wil purge data one year old. I am talking about normal cases where visa stamping is very straight forward ,revalidation or extension etc.
If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.
This is really a grey area, as per the field manual visa's issued by consulate/embassies less than a year are verified or checked. Less than a year is because the dept of states purges data a year old thats why less than a year time frame they send the copy to consulate for checks . But the grey area I am talking about is ,lets say i applied for 485 in july 2007 and i got my H1 stamped in sept 2006 by the time my case is processed it will be most probably oct 2007 (liek data fed in etc) now in oct 2007 when they process the checks DOS would have purged the data ,so in turn when they process your checks yourr visa issuance date shoudl be over a year as the consulates and embassies wil purge data one year old. I am talking about normal cases where visa stamping is very straight forward ,revalidation or extension etc.
more...
gsc999
05-13 06:23 PM
I heard many stories that consultants are selling labor certifications and this lead to a big back log.... people who were last in the line are in front of the line now....consultants created a business from these labor certifications and are making lots of money...its fair for the government or uscis to apply this bill and control this black business....
:p Attack of the Trolls - Final Battle
:p Attack of the Trolls - Final Battle
hot lank family tree template
m306m
08-07 03:56 PM
Political Science for Dummies
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
This is too good. I have been laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes... :D:D:D
Keep them coming.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
This is too good. I have been laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes... :D:D:D
Keep them coming.
more...
house Large Format Blank Family Tree
unitednations
07-08 05:31 PM
united nations,
welcome back. it would be interesting to hear your views on the whole July VB fiasco and it's aftermath. thanks!
I along with everyone was pretty surprised that they moved the dates in the june bulletin; let alone the july bulletin.
The ombudsmen report had nothing new in it; he has been saying the same thing for a few years now.
Go back to June 2005 when the bulletin for July 2005 came out and it made eb3 unavailable. Any time a total category goes unavailable that means that the oversubscribed countries should not have gotten more then 7%. ROW cannot be sacrificied under the current law for the oversubscribed countries.
Back in 2005; row was sacrificied. Next time october bulletin came about; they learned their lesson and followed the law exactly the way it was supposed to be; more cases pending then approvable per quarter then hard country quota of 7%. The statistics that came out for fiscal year ended September 2006 was directly correlated to how the law is written.
This year; everything was moving the same way. the unused from ROW should be spilled over in the fourt quarter for use by oversubscribed countries. This is not my opinion but the actual law says this.
Now; when department of state moved the visa bulletin for june; eb3 row still wasn't current; which means hard country quota of 7% and no spillover from eb1 row or eb2 row until July. This can't be done on a whim; regardless of whether this may cause unused visas; it is the law plain and simple.
Now; what department of state and uscis did to correct the mistake is a great piece of americana and how the system works here. that is; we didn't expect you to make the dates current; we will lose a lot of revenue; so how can we correct the situation; to correct the situation; they need to approve enough cases to take up enough visas to go unavailable. This is what they were proabably instructed and did their best to get there.
If they didn't use up the visas then that is where the lawsuit would be won.
A big part of this lawsuit during discovery or Q&A would be how the whole visa allocation is done. If it is determined as a side issue that the spillover happened way too early and they broke the law by giving more then 7% of the visas to the oversubscribed countries then that is definitely a death blow to the people who are really being overzealous right now in the criticisms of dos/uscis.
If this does come out and i can't see why it wouldn't come out then what is uscis to do? rescind approvals? and re-allocate to rest of the world?
The unused visas is a big problem in AC21; in that it can only happen in fourth quarter and there isn't enough time to approve cases and let them go to waste.
This might be a catalyst to change the spillover and carryover of greencards from one year to the next.
----------------------------------------------------
I am of the opinion that what happened in june 2007 actually helped greatly the oversubscribed countries in probably advancing the dates for next fiscal year as many people got approved who probably shouldn't have.
However; it reamins to be seen whether uscis/dos will go to strictly following the country caps and spillover like they did in October 2005 to September 2006. If this is the case then it could be a very long road indeed for people with 2005-2007 priority dates.
welcome back. it would be interesting to hear your views on the whole July VB fiasco and it's aftermath. thanks!
I along with everyone was pretty surprised that they moved the dates in the june bulletin; let alone the july bulletin.
The ombudsmen report had nothing new in it; he has been saying the same thing for a few years now.
Go back to June 2005 when the bulletin for July 2005 came out and it made eb3 unavailable. Any time a total category goes unavailable that means that the oversubscribed countries should not have gotten more then 7%. ROW cannot be sacrificied under the current law for the oversubscribed countries.
Back in 2005; row was sacrificied. Next time october bulletin came about; they learned their lesson and followed the law exactly the way it was supposed to be; more cases pending then approvable per quarter then hard country quota of 7%. The statistics that came out for fiscal year ended September 2006 was directly correlated to how the law is written.
This year; everything was moving the same way. the unused from ROW should be spilled over in the fourt quarter for use by oversubscribed countries. This is not my opinion but the actual law says this.
Now; when department of state moved the visa bulletin for june; eb3 row still wasn't current; which means hard country quota of 7% and no spillover from eb1 row or eb2 row until July. This can't be done on a whim; regardless of whether this may cause unused visas; it is the law plain and simple.
Now; what department of state and uscis did to correct the mistake is a great piece of americana and how the system works here. that is; we didn't expect you to make the dates current; we will lose a lot of revenue; so how can we correct the situation; to correct the situation; they need to approve enough cases to take up enough visas to go unavailable. This is what they were proabably instructed and did their best to get there.
If they didn't use up the visas then that is where the lawsuit would be won.
A big part of this lawsuit during discovery or Q&A would be how the whole visa allocation is done. If it is determined as a side issue that the spillover happened way too early and they broke the law by giving more then 7% of the visas to the oversubscribed countries then that is definitely a death blow to the people who are really being overzealous right now in the criticisms of dos/uscis.
If this does come out and i can't see why it wouldn't come out then what is uscis to do? rescind approvals? and re-allocate to rest of the world?
The unused visas is a big problem in AC21; in that it can only happen in fourth quarter and there isn't enough time to approve cases and let them go to waste.
This might be a catalyst to change the spillover and carryover of greencards from one year to the next.
----------------------------------------------------
I am of the opinion that what happened in june 2007 actually helped greatly the oversubscribed countries in probably advancing the dates for next fiscal year as many people got approved who probably shouldn't have.
However; it reamins to be seen whether uscis/dos will go to strictly following the country caps and spillover like they did in October 2005 to September 2006. If this is the case then it could be a very long road indeed for people with 2005-2007 priority dates.
tattoo PRINTABLE FAMILY TREE TEMPLATE
amsgc
08-06 11:21 PM
.
more...
pictures family tree template for
bfadlia
01-08 10:43 AM
I have use the word bastard after you used for Jews. You have said, your war will end till Jews are defeated. So get my reply. Don't cry!!!!! foul !!!
read your comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfadlia
I agree, the conflict discussed here is a political conflict. It could have been resolved much easier if all sides stopped looking at it with the religious-end-of-times lens (jews: nile-to-euphrates empire belonged to us 3000 years ago, christians: jews from all over the world must be transfered back there for the messiah to return.. and muslims: end of times won't come until jews fight the muslims and we beat them)..
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfadlia
you called all non christian nations "satanic nations that will be wiped out", called 95% of egyptians war children, brain washed bastards and terrorists.. u r right, u don't use vulgar language, only racist hate speech..
you have serious language comprehension issues.. I used bastards on palestinians not jews in a post where i was defending palestinians, so i was being sarcastic
and in the other post you refer to, i was criticizing jews, cristians and muslims for taking the end of time scenarios too seriously and applying it now.. no ones knows we are the the end of times anyway.. and even if that in some way offends you, that doesn't make name-calling all egyptians any less racist
read your comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfadlia
I agree, the conflict discussed here is a political conflict. It could have been resolved much easier if all sides stopped looking at it with the religious-end-of-times lens (jews: nile-to-euphrates empire belonged to us 3000 years ago, christians: jews from all over the world must be transfered back there for the messiah to return.. and muslims: end of times won't come until jews fight the muslims and we beat them)..
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfadlia
you called all non christian nations "satanic nations that will be wiped out", called 95% of egyptians war children, brain washed bastards and terrorists.. u r right, u don't use vulgar language, only racist hate speech..
you have serious language comprehension issues.. I used bastards on palestinians not jews in a post where i was defending palestinians, so i was being sarcastic
and in the other post you refer to, i was criticizing jews, cristians and muslims for taking the end of time scenarios too seriously and applying it now.. no ones knows we are the the end of times anyway.. and even if that in some way offends you, that doesn't make name-calling all egyptians any less racist
dresses lank family tree template
Macaca
05-02 05:32 PM
America is bleeding competitiveness (http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/28/brain-drain-or-brain-circulation-america-is-bleeding-competitiveness/) By Vivek Wadhwa | Entrepreneur Corner
With anti-immigrant sentiment building across the nation, and clouds of nativism swirling around Washington, D.C., skilled immigrants are voting with their feet. They are returning home to countries like India and China. It�s not just the people we are denying visas to who are leaving; even U.S. permanent residents and naturalized citizens are going to where they think the grass is greener. As a result, India and China are experiencing an entrepreneurship boom. And they are learning to innovate just as Silicon Valley does.
Some call this a �brain drain� others say it is �brain circulation.� It is without doubt, good for these countries and it is good for the world. But this is America�s loss: innovation that would otherwise be happening here is going abroad. Without realizing it, we are exporting our prosperity and strengthening our competitors.
There are no hard data available on how many skilled immigrants have already left the U.S. My estimate is that 150,000 have returned to India and China, each, over the past two decades. The trend has accelerated dramatically over the past five years; tens of thousands are now returning home every year. Most authorities agree with these estimates. For example, the Chinese Ministry of Education estimates that the number of overseas Chinese who returned to China in 2009 having received a foreign education reached 108,000: a sharp increase of 56.2% over the previous year. In 2010, this number reached an all-time high of 134,800 (a significant proportion studied in the U.S.).
Why is this important? Because, as research conducted by my team at Duke, UC-Berkeley, Harvard, and New York University has shown, 52.4% of all startups in Silicon Valley, from 1995 to 2005, were founded by immigrants. With all these immigrants leaving, and the next generation of foreign-born entrepreneurs trapped in �immigration limbo,� we won�t have as many immigrant founded startups in the future. The xenophobes who are lobbying against skilled immigration will cheer; but there won�t be more jobs for Americans; just less startups in the U.S. and more abroad. The U.S. pie will be smaller.
My team researched the backgrounds of immigrant founders, and the U.S. immigration backlog. We learned that the majority came to the U.S. as students; 74% held graduate or post graduate degrees, of which 75% were in science, engineering, technology, or mathematics. On average, immigrants started their ventures 13 years after entering the U.S.
During the last twenty years, we admitted record numbers of international students and highly educated foreign workers on temporary visas. But we never expanded the number of permanent resident visas that allow them to stay permanently. The result is that we have a backlog of more than one million skilled workers�doctors, scientists, researchers, and engineers, who are trapped in immigration limbo. They are working for the same companies and doing the same jobs as when they filed their paperwork for gaining permanent residence; this may have been 10-15 years ago. A foreign student who graduates with a masters or PhD in engineering from Duke or Stanford and joins the queue today will have to wait 10-20 years, perhaps longer, to gain permanent residence. They can�t start companies or progress their careers during the most productive period in their lives. Why would anyone put up with that?
Indeed, a survey we conducted of 1,224 foreign nationals who were studying at U.S. universities in 2009, or who had just graduated, revealed that they believed that the U.S. was no longer the destination of choice for professional careers. Most did not want to stay for very long. Fifty eight percent of Indian, 54% of Chinese, and 40% of European students said that they would stay in the U.S. for at least a few years after graduation if given the chance, but only 6% of Indian, 10% of Chinese, and 15% of European students said they want to stay permanently. The largest group of respondents� 55% of Indian, 40% of Chinese, and 30% of European students�wanted to return home within five years. This is very different than what used to be the norm in previous decades: the vast majority of Indians and Chinese stayed permanently.
Our surveys, in 2008, of 1,203 Indian and Chinese immigrants who had worked in or received their education in the U.S. and returned to their home countries revealed that although restrictive immigration policies had caused some returnees to depart, the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life. The move home also served as a career catalyst. For example, only 10% of the Indian returnees held senior management positions in the U.S., but 44% found jobs at this level in India. Chinese returnees went from 9% in senior management in the U.S. to 36% in China. The vast majority thought that quality of life, professional advancement, and family ties were at least as good at home as in the U.S.
The majority of the people we surveyed said they planned to start a business within five years. When we published our research, many experts said that this is where returnees would face the greatest frustration�that the weak infrastructure in India; authoritarianism in China; and corruption and red tape and lack of funding in both countries would be a severe handicap. In other words, when it came to competition from startups in India and China, the U.S. had nothing to worry about.
So, last September, we initiated a project to learn how the entrepreneurship landscape in India and China compares to the U.S. We wanted to learn why these entrepreneurs returned, what their perceptions of the entrepreneurial climate in their home countries were, what the advantages and disadvantages of working in India and China were over working in the U.S., and what types of ties they maintained to the U.S.
We were really surprised at what we learned. In the next installment, I�ll discuss our findings.
Standing Up for Guest Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/opinion/02mon3.html) New York Times Editorial
With anti-immigrant sentiment building across the nation, and clouds of nativism swirling around Washington, D.C., skilled immigrants are voting with their feet. They are returning home to countries like India and China. It�s not just the people we are denying visas to who are leaving; even U.S. permanent residents and naturalized citizens are going to where they think the grass is greener. As a result, India and China are experiencing an entrepreneurship boom. And they are learning to innovate just as Silicon Valley does.
Some call this a �brain drain� others say it is �brain circulation.� It is without doubt, good for these countries and it is good for the world. But this is America�s loss: innovation that would otherwise be happening here is going abroad. Without realizing it, we are exporting our prosperity and strengthening our competitors.
There are no hard data available on how many skilled immigrants have already left the U.S. My estimate is that 150,000 have returned to India and China, each, over the past two decades. The trend has accelerated dramatically over the past five years; tens of thousands are now returning home every year. Most authorities agree with these estimates. For example, the Chinese Ministry of Education estimates that the number of overseas Chinese who returned to China in 2009 having received a foreign education reached 108,000: a sharp increase of 56.2% over the previous year. In 2010, this number reached an all-time high of 134,800 (a significant proportion studied in the U.S.).
Why is this important? Because, as research conducted by my team at Duke, UC-Berkeley, Harvard, and New York University has shown, 52.4% of all startups in Silicon Valley, from 1995 to 2005, were founded by immigrants. With all these immigrants leaving, and the next generation of foreign-born entrepreneurs trapped in �immigration limbo,� we won�t have as many immigrant founded startups in the future. The xenophobes who are lobbying against skilled immigration will cheer; but there won�t be more jobs for Americans; just less startups in the U.S. and more abroad. The U.S. pie will be smaller.
My team researched the backgrounds of immigrant founders, and the U.S. immigration backlog. We learned that the majority came to the U.S. as students; 74% held graduate or post graduate degrees, of which 75% were in science, engineering, technology, or mathematics. On average, immigrants started their ventures 13 years after entering the U.S.
During the last twenty years, we admitted record numbers of international students and highly educated foreign workers on temporary visas. But we never expanded the number of permanent resident visas that allow them to stay permanently. The result is that we have a backlog of more than one million skilled workers�doctors, scientists, researchers, and engineers, who are trapped in immigration limbo. They are working for the same companies and doing the same jobs as when they filed their paperwork for gaining permanent residence; this may have been 10-15 years ago. A foreign student who graduates with a masters or PhD in engineering from Duke or Stanford and joins the queue today will have to wait 10-20 years, perhaps longer, to gain permanent residence. They can�t start companies or progress their careers during the most productive period in their lives. Why would anyone put up with that?
Indeed, a survey we conducted of 1,224 foreign nationals who were studying at U.S. universities in 2009, or who had just graduated, revealed that they believed that the U.S. was no longer the destination of choice for professional careers. Most did not want to stay for very long. Fifty eight percent of Indian, 54% of Chinese, and 40% of European students said that they would stay in the U.S. for at least a few years after graduation if given the chance, but only 6% of Indian, 10% of Chinese, and 15% of European students said they want to stay permanently. The largest group of respondents� 55% of Indian, 40% of Chinese, and 30% of European students�wanted to return home within five years. This is very different than what used to be the norm in previous decades: the vast majority of Indians and Chinese stayed permanently.
Our surveys, in 2008, of 1,203 Indian and Chinese immigrants who had worked in or received their education in the U.S. and returned to their home countries revealed that although restrictive immigration policies had caused some returnees to depart, the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life. The move home also served as a career catalyst. For example, only 10% of the Indian returnees held senior management positions in the U.S., but 44% found jobs at this level in India. Chinese returnees went from 9% in senior management in the U.S. to 36% in China. The vast majority thought that quality of life, professional advancement, and family ties were at least as good at home as in the U.S.
The majority of the people we surveyed said they planned to start a business within five years. When we published our research, many experts said that this is where returnees would face the greatest frustration�that the weak infrastructure in India; authoritarianism in China; and corruption and red tape and lack of funding in both countries would be a severe handicap. In other words, when it came to competition from startups in India and China, the U.S. had nothing to worry about.
So, last September, we initiated a project to learn how the entrepreneurship landscape in India and China compares to the U.S. We wanted to learn why these entrepreneurs returned, what their perceptions of the entrepreneurial climate in their home countries were, what the advantages and disadvantages of working in India and China were over working in the U.S., and what types of ties they maintained to the U.S.
We were really surprised at what we learned. In the next installment, I�ll discuss our findings.
Standing Up for Guest Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/opinion/02mon3.html) New York Times Editorial
more...
makeup Family Tree for Kids – Example
alisa
12-27 12:50 AM
We need to send that message clearly and forcibly to the world. The Clear message is " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"
Why do you want to involve the world in a matter between Pakistan and India?
I see what you are saying. But I don't think I agree with you.
The world probably doesn't give much of a damn about it. At the end of the day, a few million nuked and dead Pakistanis and Indians are not going to be the West's headache. They will be the headache for India and Pakistan. So, nukes DO impact the options.
As to your second question, you never know. To be honest, I dont know...Musharraf started Kargil and they did not acknowledge even dead Pakistan soldiers. Sharif went to US and pleaded Clinton to stop the war.
I do believe ISI's footprint is there. ISI is built on the image of CIA during cold war. They are a pretty powerful bunch with one complete victory ( against Soviets) and two successful (atleast so far) distruptive operations in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Without the big brother ISI watching, these jihadists can not move around. But I do give the benefit of doubt to Zardari's govt. The poor guy has just lost his wife. He might not have signed off on this ops.
Thanks for your honesty.
There was an entire non-state machinery that was built to fight the Soviets and to fight India. But the problem is, you can't dismantle it instantly.
And this machinery is now fighting against the government in Pakistan. Remember Benazir's assassination this time last year? Do you recall the multiple assassination attempts on Musharraf? And officers of the army were behind those.
So, if ISI is behind Bombay, I struggle to understand what it would gain from provoking India.
The 'machinery''s motives I can understand. They are being pursued by Pakistan army and NATO forces, and by provoking India and starting a conflict on the eastern border, they would divert Pakistan army and get some relief. Plus, the more chaos in Pakistan, the better it is for them.
Why do you want to involve the world in a matter between Pakistan and India?
I see what you are saying. But I don't think I agree with you.
The world probably doesn't give much of a damn about it. At the end of the day, a few million nuked and dead Pakistanis and Indians are not going to be the West's headache. They will be the headache for India and Pakistan. So, nukes DO impact the options.
As to your second question, you never know. To be honest, I dont know...Musharraf started Kargil and they did not acknowledge even dead Pakistan soldiers. Sharif went to US and pleaded Clinton to stop the war.
I do believe ISI's footprint is there. ISI is built on the image of CIA during cold war. They are a pretty powerful bunch with one complete victory ( against Soviets) and two successful (atleast so far) distruptive operations in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Without the big brother ISI watching, these jihadists can not move around. But I do give the benefit of doubt to Zardari's govt. The poor guy has just lost his wife. He might not have signed off on this ops.
Thanks for your honesty.
There was an entire non-state machinery that was built to fight the Soviets and to fight India. But the problem is, you can't dismantle it instantly.
And this machinery is now fighting against the government in Pakistan. Remember Benazir's assassination this time last year? Do you recall the multiple assassination attempts on Musharraf? And officers of the army were behind those.
So, if ISI is behind Bombay, I struggle to understand what it would gain from provoking India.
The 'machinery''s motives I can understand. They are being pursued by Pakistan army and NATO forces, and by provoking India and starting a conflict on the eastern border, they would divert Pakistan army and get some relief. Plus, the more chaos in Pakistan, the better it is for them.
girlfriend lank family tree template for
alterego
04-06 09:35 AM
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to connect the ARM reset schedule with write-offs at wall street firms. Instead, I was trying to point out that there will be increased number of foreclosures as those ARMs reset over the next 36 months.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier this decade.
The truth is probably between the extreme pessimism in this post and the unbridled optimism in other posts.
Never trust what realtors tell you, they are in it to make a sale and it is always in their interest to talk up the market. I have never yet seen/read/heard a realtor speak negatively about the market. Even if they are asked an obvious question like do you think prices have fallen in the last year they will say they have trended down a little but the foreclosure crisis is over now, and the fed is acting decisively and the demographics speak to a longer term secular uptrend bla bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Some BS to justify their talk.
The bottom line is there will be a hangover of a few years from this unprecedented bubble in housing, it will be more severe in hotspot areas we all know about. In those areas you will likely see a 25-30% drop with about half of it already baked in, another half spread out more slowly over the next 3 yrs that that graph illustrated. Additionally the inflation rate of 3-4%(you can expect an uptick over the next 2-3 yrs) will eat away another few percentage points of your capital , while also eating away at your loan.
The net effect is that you would be another 20% or so the worse off in these hotbed areas in the next 3-4 yrs. In more steady areas, that fall will be much more muted perhaps half or less of that. However sales will slow to a crawl with the slowing jobs market.
The main determinants of house prices are.
1) Inventory............a negative right now.
2) Credit............negative but with scope for improvement in the next 12 mths.
3) Jobs...........likely to be down for the next 6 months atleast.
4) Salaries..................Global pressures on these will likley persist with some tax help to average americans likley if Dems. take control.
5) Market psychology...................likely damaged for the near term atleast 12 mths.
6) The replacement value of homes. Land is a non factor here in this country. I scoff at suggestions to the contrary. Even in cities with restrictions, this is a yawn yawn factor. Unless you are speaking about downtown manhattan it is not a factor. Construction costs on the other hand are a factor. A value of $100 per Sq Ft of constructed value is perhaps par for the course right now, that can only go up, with rising commodity prices, salaries for construction with illegals kicked out etc over time this will go up.
7) Rental rates to home prices. This too will catch up. Folks kicked out of sub prime mortgage homes need to go somewhere. They will likley drive demand for rentals.
All of this points to a fast then a slow correction. I think we are nearing the end of the fast phase of home price correction. 20-25% in hotbed areas and 7-12% in other areas. I think you will see a more gradual correction of a similar magnitude spread over 3-4 yrs now.
Lets see how it all unfolds.
Remember Every drinking binge has a hangover! The US housing market is now in one.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier this decade.
The truth is probably between the extreme pessimism in this post and the unbridled optimism in other posts.
Never trust what realtors tell you, they are in it to make a sale and it is always in their interest to talk up the market. I have never yet seen/read/heard a realtor speak negatively about the market. Even if they are asked an obvious question like do you think prices have fallen in the last year they will say they have trended down a little but the foreclosure crisis is over now, and the fed is acting decisively and the demographics speak to a longer term secular uptrend bla bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Some BS to justify their talk.
The bottom line is there will be a hangover of a few years from this unprecedented bubble in housing, it will be more severe in hotspot areas we all know about. In those areas you will likely see a 25-30% drop with about half of it already baked in, another half spread out more slowly over the next 3 yrs that that graph illustrated. Additionally the inflation rate of 3-4%(you can expect an uptick over the next 2-3 yrs) will eat away another few percentage points of your capital , while also eating away at your loan.
The net effect is that you would be another 20% or so the worse off in these hotbed areas in the next 3-4 yrs. In more steady areas, that fall will be much more muted perhaps half or less of that. However sales will slow to a crawl with the slowing jobs market.
The main determinants of house prices are.
1) Inventory............a negative right now.
2) Credit............negative but with scope for improvement in the next 12 mths.
3) Jobs...........likely to be down for the next 6 months atleast.
4) Salaries..................Global pressures on these will likley persist with some tax help to average americans likley if Dems. take control.
5) Market psychology...................likely damaged for the near term atleast 12 mths.
6) The replacement value of homes. Land is a non factor here in this country. I scoff at suggestions to the contrary. Even in cities with restrictions, this is a yawn yawn factor. Unless you are speaking about downtown manhattan it is not a factor. Construction costs on the other hand are a factor. A value of $100 per Sq Ft of constructed value is perhaps par for the course right now, that can only go up, with rising commodity prices, salaries for construction with illegals kicked out etc over time this will go up.
7) Rental rates to home prices. This too will catch up. Folks kicked out of sub prime mortgage homes need to go somewhere. They will likley drive demand for rentals.
All of this points to a fast then a slow correction. I think we are nearing the end of the fast phase of home price correction. 20-25% in hotbed areas and 7-12% in other areas. I think you will see a more gradual correction of a similar magnitude spread over 3-4 yrs now.
Lets see how it all unfolds.
Remember Every drinking binge has a hangover! The US housing market is now in one.
hairstyles Simple Family Tree Template
americandesi
08-06 02:09 PM
After making a trip of South India, Santa Singh, his wife and his son were returning to Punjab in Tamilnadu Express.
Santa Singh was occupying the lower berth, his wife the middle berth and his son the top most berth in the train. When the train stopped at one of the stations on the way back the son requested Santa Singh to bring him a cup of Ice cream to which Santa readily agreed. When Santa and his son returned they found that a South Indian who couldn't understand Hindi had occupied his son's berth.
Outraged, Santa Singh called the TT and asked him to help. TT requested that he could not understand Hindi/Punjabi so it would be better if Santa Singh explained the whole situation to him in English.
Santa Singh explained, "That man sleeping on top of my wife is not giving birth to my child."
Santa Singh was occupying the lower berth, his wife the middle berth and his son the top most berth in the train. When the train stopped at one of the stations on the way back the son requested Santa Singh to bring him a cup of Ice cream to which Santa readily agreed. When Santa and his son returned they found that a South Indian who couldn't understand Hindi had occupied his son's berth.
Outraged, Santa Singh called the TT and asked him to help. TT requested that he could not understand Hindi/Punjabi so it would be better if Santa Singh explained the whole situation to him in English.
Santa Singh explained, "That man sleeping on top of my wife is not giving birth to my child."
chanduv23
04-13 03:03 PM
ok..never mind..I called the officer and informed that I don't have any such information and since it was taken over by a different company, I am not in a position to get it..so Officer seemed satisified but asked few other related questions..and it is good for now..
sigh..
Dear friend - looks like ur sugar levels are going up and down - hang in there. I think you will be fine. Thanks for sharing your experiences with people here.
sigh..
Dear friend - looks like ur sugar levels are going up and down - hang in there. I think you will be fine. Thanks for sharing your experiences with people here.
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
No comments:
Post a Comment