sledge_hammer
02-14 10:51 AM
How is it relevent if I am a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or anybody else for that matter? Your question is so absurd, and has absolutely nothing to do with what a human being should feel towards the suffering/struggle of another human. The reason I asked you what you think is because you supported OP's idiotic comparison.
I do not know what you have against conservative Christians or Jews, but you knowing my religion will not prove anything or make your statements any more sensible.
In order to feel pain for a person, how closely do you have to be to that person? What is the definition and boundry? Do you need to be only a parent, child, or a sibling? Can you be just a blood relative? Do you have to speak the same language or come from the same state? Do you have to be of the same caste? Same religion? Same race?
Do I HAVE to be a Jew to sympathize with them?
As humans, there are certain standards associated to the pains people go through. The Jews or the Kashmiri Pandits or Muslims or Christians that are killed, gassed, persecuted, imprisoned have definitely been through more than what we legal immigrants are going through.
You ougth to be such an egotistical and selfish person if you feel that your pain (not getting H-1B) is more than someone else's (being killed) because you're experiencing it! Even if you're simply "comparing"!
So in your case, since you support OP's analogy (our suffering vs. Jews), you would rather be gassed like the Jews were than to wait in line for 10 years in the queue for your GC? Or if you feel that being gassed is equivalent to being denied your H-1B extension in a TARP company, be my guest; to have a first hand experience, go lock yourself in your car garage w/ the engine running and all the doors locked. Come back alive (which I highly doubt you will), and tell us that you felt the same pain in that car as you would have felt if your H-1B was denied, then we'll believe you.
Get over yourself and stop writing nonsense!
Are you a jew or are you asking this because you are a conservative Christan and you believe that jews are special because Christ was jew at the time of birth? Not that there is anything wrong with either, but I just wanted to know.
"What I believe" - What difference does it make? Why do you ask? You see its a matter of perspective. Someone may feel extremely miserable going through the process and its possible that that person may chose to compare this experience with the real victims of ethnic cleansing. Just because there is no violence involved, it doesn't mean that things cannot be comparable. Mental agony and silent torture in even worst when compared with physical violence because one is dying every moment you live. You may argue that we are all dying every moment we live, then isn't life just a torture?
Its not necessary that others MUST believe or experience their life the way you or I do. Everybody lives through a different experience. You may not agree with their version or their perspective, but it is not reasonable to force someone to draw comparison based on what you believe. And this is what I believe.
.
I do not know what you have against conservative Christians or Jews, but you knowing my religion will not prove anything or make your statements any more sensible.
In order to feel pain for a person, how closely do you have to be to that person? What is the definition and boundry? Do you need to be only a parent, child, or a sibling? Can you be just a blood relative? Do you have to speak the same language or come from the same state? Do you have to be of the same caste? Same religion? Same race?
Do I HAVE to be a Jew to sympathize with them?
As humans, there are certain standards associated to the pains people go through. The Jews or the Kashmiri Pandits or Muslims or Christians that are killed, gassed, persecuted, imprisoned have definitely been through more than what we legal immigrants are going through.
You ougth to be such an egotistical and selfish person if you feel that your pain (not getting H-1B) is more than someone else's (being killed) because you're experiencing it! Even if you're simply "comparing"!
So in your case, since you support OP's analogy (our suffering vs. Jews), you would rather be gassed like the Jews were than to wait in line for 10 years in the queue for your GC? Or if you feel that being gassed is equivalent to being denied your H-1B extension in a TARP company, be my guest; to have a first hand experience, go lock yourself in your car garage w/ the engine running and all the doors locked. Come back alive (which I highly doubt you will), and tell us that you felt the same pain in that car as you would have felt if your H-1B was denied, then we'll believe you.
Get over yourself and stop writing nonsense!
Are you a jew or are you asking this because you are a conservative Christan and you believe that jews are special because Christ was jew at the time of birth? Not that there is anything wrong with either, but I just wanted to know.
"What I believe" - What difference does it make? Why do you ask? You see its a matter of perspective. Someone may feel extremely miserable going through the process and its possible that that person may chose to compare this experience with the real victims of ethnic cleansing. Just because there is no violence involved, it doesn't mean that things cannot be comparable. Mental agony and silent torture in even worst when compared with physical violence because one is dying every moment you live. You may argue that we are all dying every moment we live, then isn't life just a torture?
Its not necessary that others MUST believe or experience their life the way you or I do. Everybody lives through a different experience. You may not agree with their version or their perspective, but it is not reasonable to force someone to draw comparison based on what you believe. And this is what I believe.
.
wallpaper IPhone Wallpapersflower
indyanguy
02-20 03:47 PM
looks like there no hope for EB3 India to move further :(
Ya, no hope for EB3-India :(
Ya, no hope for EB3-India :(
vghc
07-03 11:59 AM
If you call it re-distribution of pain, I would call it sharing the pain. I think its high time ROW candidates felt the pain which we non-ROW have suffered for a long time. You are objecting just because you are on the better side and wish to continue with the better bargain. If you think about it as a EB group in general, then its absolutely ridiculous that there should be country limits for EB category GC when there is no limits on H1B which is the primary route for most EB category GC applications. I completely agree with you on the family quotient of your arguement, they should not get the GC numbers which is meant only for primary EB applicant. Not that I want families to suffer, but the family GC numbers for EB applicants should not count towards GC number cap.
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><
2011 Colorful Flowers Wallpaper
nomi
12-12 04:57 PM
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
12/11/2006: USCIS Considers Termination of Concurrent Filing (140/485)
According to the USCIS rule-making agenda, the USCIS is to propose to terminate current concurrent I-140 and I-485 filing. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in March 2007 with 60-day comment period. It is thus not imminent, but in the later part of next year(Oops!), the immigrant community may see a totally different filing procedure including electronic registration and filing just like current PERM labor certificaiton application procedure. Once the concurrent filing is terminated, the immigrants may experience a terrible pain as related to maintenance of nonimmigrant status pending I-140 petition, eligibility for 245K benefit, plus unavailability of EAD and AP pending I-140 petition, AC-21 180-day portability, etc. etc. Should the I-140 petition processing be dragged, the pain will be extremely unbearable
http://www.immigration-law.com/
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
12/11/2006: USCIS Considers Termination of Concurrent Filing (140/485)
According to the USCIS rule-making agenda, the USCIS is to propose to terminate current concurrent I-140 and I-485 filing. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in March 2007 with 60-day comment period. It is thus not imminent, but in the later part of next year(Oops!), the immigrant community may see a totally different filing procedure including electronic registration and filing just like current PERM labor certificaiton application procedure. Once the concurrent filing is terminated, the immigrants may experience a terrible pain as related to maintenance of nonimmigrant status pending I-140 petition, eligibility for 245K benefit, plus unavailability of EAD and AP pending I-140 petition, AC-21 180-day portability, etc. etc. Should the I-140 petition processing be dragged, the pain will be extremely unbearable
http://www.immigration-law.com/
more...
imneedy
04-10 10:28 AM
buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
lol :d
lol :d
sam_hoosier
12-05 04:52 PM
There is clear guidance in that H1-B petitioner seeking extension does not have to be the same employer that had filed (and approved) the I-140. Once you have an approved 140, anyone can extend your H1 for 3 years
Where can I find that documentation ?
Where can I find that documentation ?
more...
newuser
09-27 11:08 AM
http://return2india.org/
2010 Beautiful Flowers Wallpaper
ajay
12-25 02:12 PM
Nrc2008068051
more...
Imm_Exploited
03-15 09:52 PM
I wonder who wants to take credit for the elimination of the labor substitution provision that has been (mis) used by the immigrant community as well as some employers. Labor substitution was one of the reasons for the back and forth of priority dates movement. Thankfully, effective July 2007, the labor substitution rule has been eliminated.
The immigration system was more of screwed-up one till March 2005 (not that it is no more a screwed-up system now) when the PERM was introduced. With the introduction of PERM, the priority dates were common for EB labor certification nation-wide. Prior to March 2005, we had a screwed-up policy of state-wise labor-certification backlog where those who filed from states like Maine or Nebraska had an advantage of getting not only the approval of labor certification (form ETA 750-A/750-B or ETA 9089) faster but also having the Green Card in hand much sooner than those who filed from other states.
Though the introduction of PERM, removal of labor-substitution, and the 180-day rule for name check have noteworthy and life-saving benefits for immigrants, there needs to be more transparency from DOS/USCIS on how the EB GCs are allotted or wasted unused.
IE
The immigration system was more of screwed-up one till March 2005 (not that it is no more a screwed-up system now) when the PERM was introduced. With the introduction of PERM, the priority dates were common for EB labor certification nation-wide. Prior to March 2005, we had a screwed-up policy of state-wise labor-certification backlog where those who filed from states like Maine or Nebraska had an advantage of getting not only the approval of labor certification (form ETA 750-A/750-B or ETA 9089) faster but also having the Green Card in hand much sooner than those who filed from other states.
Though the introduction of PERM, removal of labor-substitution, and the 180-day rule for name check have noteworthy and life-saving benefits for immigrants, there needs to be more transparency from DOS/USCIS on how the EB GCs are allotted or wasted unused.
IE
hair Flower
newuser
05-06 03:28 PM
I got a reply from USCIS saying that they can process the request sorted by priority date and country of birth of the applicant. Processing time will be around 15 months and that they have got their answer on priority date.
what are the next steps?
15 MONTHS.....:mad:
what are the next steps?
15 MONTHS.....:mad:
more...
sodh
07-24 10:44 PM
I was on OPT but my I140 has a different number than the one on my OPT.
They are talking about Allien#.
They are talking about Allien#.
hot -flower-mobile-wallpaper
tinamatthew
07-24 01:52 PM
should such people just wait hoping they will receive an RFE (I don't like this one at all) whenever the case is opened? TINA WROTE: For initial evidence items I believed that it would be automatically rejected if not included, HOWEVER, with the new press release from USCIS on July 23, if i-485s WITHOUT medical reports will be accepted, then what is an employment letter? abhijitp WROTE: I hope that is true. AILA seems to be working on this. I am happy to believe it if USCIS issues a press release to that effect... high hopes:-)
pls find above the answers.
USCIS has released a press release July 23, 2007. Check QUESTION 13
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
pls find above the answers.
USCIS has released a press release July 23, 2007. Check QUESTION 13
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
more...
house Mobile Flowers Wallpapers
ss1026
11-01 01:04 PM
Bumping..
I am myself curious to see more ppl respond to this vote but I think it might be better if you bump it on a high traffic day. I guess the visa bulletin issuance day is a good one
I am myself curious to see more ppl respond to this vote but I think it might be better if you bump it on a high traffic day. I guess the visa bulletin issuance day is a good one
tattoo Free Orange Flowers Wallpapers
WillIWin?
07-23 02:37 PM
Is there anyone like my case - concurrently submitting 140 and 485 who submitted WITHOUT current employment letter ?
more...
pictures Share this Wallpaper to your
mallu
02-15 04:25 PM
What is the current % of India/China folks in USA now that threaten to affect diversity ? Also how many (% ) from Italy,Ireland,UK etc ?
Anything published ? Just curiosity ( not questioning any current laws )..
Anything published ? Just curiosity ( not questioning any current laws )..
dresses Free Violet Flowers Wallpapers
sathyaraj
03-06 10:54 PM
Hi All:
I have filed my AOS during last july 2007 and got EAD/AP etc. It has been more than 180 days and have decided to move to new company using AC21.
There have been many threads with information on whether to contact USCIS or not. I have decided to contact USCIS and inform them about Ac21. I hired a lawyer. He seems to be very knowledgeable. As per him, it is not enough just to have an offer letter with salary and job details. He prepared a letter such that the new company also supports my green card process. I am not sure whether my new company will provide this information. As per the information, I have seen in murthy and Rajiv Khanna there is no need to have any support from the new company. Only fulltime job with salary and job duties is enough. He also scared me saying that if the new company does not support my GC, I have to start all over again.
Please provide me with your experience and the inputs from your attorney.
I apologize if this matter is already discussed. Please point me the thread so that I can look up and see.
Regards
SathyaRaj
I have filed my AOS during last july 2007 and got EAD/AP etc. It has been more than 180 days and have decided to move to new company using AC21.
There have been many threads with information on whether to contact USCIS or not. I have decided to contact USCIS and inform them about Ac21. I hired a lawyer. He seems to be very knowledgeable. As per him, it is not enough just to have an offer letter with salary and job details. He prepared a letter such that the new company also supports my green card process. I am not sure whether my new company will provide this information. As per the information, I have seen in murthy and Rajiv Khanna there is no need to have any support from the new company. Only fulltime job with salary and job duties is enough. He also scared me saying that if the new company does not support my GC, I have to start all over again.
Please provide me with your experience and the inputs from your attorney.
I apologize if this matter is already discussed. Please point me the thread so that I can look up and see.
Regards
SathyaRaj
more...
makeup Flowers Wallpaper Num.
diptam
07-24 11:14 AM
Guys,
I signed a bond of 10G for getting a hardcopy of this letter mailed out by June 29th from my company's NJ office. This is initial evidence that you have FUTURE job offer and without it the 485 will be rejected.
If someone is lucky let they be - Do NOT make this mistake of not sending this letter in ORIGINAL.
Thanks,
I will try to dig out the actual memo. But this is from the oh law firm page:
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
I signed a bond of 10G for getting a hardcopy of this letter mailed out by June 29th from my company's NJ office. This is initial evidence that you have FUTURE job offer and without it the 485 will be rejected.
If someone is lucky let they be - Do NOT make this mistake of not sending this letter in ORIGINAL.
Thanks,
I will try to dig out the actual memo. But this is from the oh law firm page:
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
girlfriend amazing flower
gautamagg
04-23 03:47 PM
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
As an IV member so you should have spoken out IV cause. If you had personal issues, you should seek personal appointment with the congressman and meet him. Do not use IV forum and IV political capital on furthering your own agenda.
If you want to go back to your country. Go back. If you want to do hunger strike do it. No body is stopping you. But do it on your own and not ruin our greencard chances. Greencard is not important to you, but it is important to us.
If you think Harvard and Stanfords are dying to have you as a student and totally back you in your mission, then you should use their forums and offiices to further your agenda and not IV's.
If you want to preach free speech, then please go and give this lecture to your Harvard and Stanford'd Deans and have them all listen to you.
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
As an IV member so you should have spoken out IV cause. If you had personal issues, you should seek personal appointment with the congressman and meet him. Do not use IV forum and IV political capital on furthering your own agenda.
If you want to go back to your country. Go back. If you want to do hunger strike do it. No body is stopping you. But do it on your own and not ruin our greencard chances. Greencard is not important to you, but it is important to us.
If you think Harvard and Stanfords are dying to have you as a student and totally back you in your mission, then you should use their forums and offiices to further your agenda and not IV's.
If you want to preach free speech, then please go and give this lecture to your Harvard and Stanford'd Deans and have them all listen to you.
hairstyles Mobile Wallpapers: Flower
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
dealsnet
05-26 05:31 PM
When I was working in Kuwait, me and every one carry Civil ID, all the time in the wallet. If some one don't have, the police will take him to the station and allow to call his sponser to bring the documents. If the sponser is out of station, any friend can bring the documents. Color of civil ID is diffrent for Kuwaiti's and others. So police didn't question any Kuwaitis. Other nationals also into two catagories, one for the general employees, and the other is domestic visa holders. The domestic visa holders ID is diffrent color, if the police caught them any time other than friday, they will go to jail and deported. They have right to be on the road only on friday. Other days of the week, it is banned. Only allow to live in the sponsers house. I heard, in saudi, muslims have green color ID,s to distiguish between other religious members.
Any way USA is not discriminate between religion, or nationalities. If it is law, we need to obey. Green card can carry with credit card, driver license. I think checking is only on boders. They may checking any one jumping from Mexico or Canada. It is for security purpose. Not to harass.
I read in news papers, in Kerala police are questioning and checking in highway and other major roads for Tamil speaking people for suspected LTTE members. Many travellers experienced inconvenience.
The requirement for US citizen - oral declaration. That is right, when someone says that he/she is US citizen or US national, the burden is on authorities to prove otherwise.
______________________
US citizen of Indian origin
Any way USA is not discriminate between religion, or nationalities. If it is law, we need to obey. Green card can carry with credit card, driver license. I think checking is only on boders. They may checking any one jumping from Mexico or Canada. It is for security purpose. Not to harass.
I read in news papers, in Kerala police are questioning and checking in highway and other major roads for Tamil speaking people for suspected LTTE members. Many travellers experienced inconvenience.
The requirement for US citizen - oral declaration. That is right, when someone says that he/she is US citizen or US national, the burden is on authorities to prove otherwise.
______________________
US citizen of Indian origin
485Question
09-18 10:46 PM
All I want to stress are these keywords in all our prints "Legal - Highly Skilled"
And well learned.
And well learned.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar