ntpatil
04-27 09:27 AM
Thanks vhd999,
That is what I am talking about. Even after confirming with cust serv reps, the check-in counters behave differently. I will also carry a printout of the website that says 2 bags for the worldwide option.
desigirl,
There is no problem at India's end..we all know how to handle that. Also, it does matter if there are 2 bags or 1 from here. If I have 3 extra bags, then I end up paying more...rather than assuming that they will be checked in free. You pack your luggage accordingly assuming x no of bags are involved. Also, I will make sure my wife travels comfortably, that's why i am asking these questions in the first place.
That is what I am talking about. Even after confirming with cust serv reps, the check-in counters behave differently. I will also carry a printout of the website that says 2 bags for the worldwide option.
desigirl,
There is no problem at India's end..we all know how to handle that. Also, it does matter if there are 2 bags or 1 from here. If I have 3 extra bags, then I end up paying more...rather than assuming that they will be checked in free. You pack your luggage accordingly assuming x no of bags are involved. Also, I will make sure my wife travels comfortably, that's why i am asking these questions in the first place.
wallpaper Roxy surfing - Roxy Wallpaper
jgh_res
04-16 07:42 AM
existing thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19011
All:
My parents are going to visit USA first time. Does anyone of you suggest Medical Insurance information ? I am not sure which company I should choose for visitor Medical Insurance.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19011
All:
My parents are going to visit USA first time. Does anyone of you suggest Medical Insurance information ? I am not sure which company I should choose for visitor Medical Insurance.
misanthrope
03-25 12:08 AM
How will that help resolve housing market problem? If you are going to make a claim then make sure that you can back it up with facts/figures/evidence.
2011 roxy logo wallpaper. roxy logo
gclongwaytogo
10-25 11:08 AM
Mine showed up nearly after a weeks time....got the rns from io.....but checks got cleared after two weeks of getting the rns from io...
Hello guys ,
any idea why I cannot find the receipt numbers and its statis on the uscis web site.I obtained the receipt numbers from the back of the cheques that they cashed..
thanks in advance
Hello guys ,
any idea why I cannot find the receipt numbers and its statis on the uscis web site.I obtained the receipt numbers from the back of the cheques that they cashed..
thanks in advance
more...
antihero
11-27 12:36 AM
If we have an AP, then do we still require a transit visa?
I am thinking of traveling by qatar airlines. I believe they dont have any transit visa requirement.
I am thinking of traveling by qatar airlines. I believe they dont have any transit visa requirement.
Pagal
08-04 12:16 AM
Hello,
As EAD is not same like H1-B, you can not work if the old EAD expires and new one is not issued (see an attorney's reponse here (http://forum.freeadvice.com/immigration-9/ead-renewal-195657.html) and here (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=7161084702)). If EAD application is pending for more than 90 days, then you can open a service request and request expedited approval (there have been cases where such requests resulted in EAD approvals within a week). It is worth a try to approach the local USCIS and request a temporary EAD, but as far as I know, USCIS has stopped issuing such temporary cards.
It is important that you do not work in-between the expiry date of old EAD and start date of new EAD, so it is better to ask for unpaid leave for such time, though there is no need to quit the job. If the work demands are heavy, you may want to continue working as per 245k (but you will have to pay 1000 USD as fine), see the discussion here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/20566-new-245-k-memo-released-with-more-clarifications.html).
Good luck!
As EAD is not same like H1-B, you can not work if the old EAD expires and new one is not issued (see an attorney's reponse here (http://forum.freeadvice.com/immigration-9/ead-renewal-195657.html) and here (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=7161084702)). If EAD application is pending for more than 90 days, then you can open a service request and request expedited approval (there have been cases where such requests resulted in EAD approvals within a week). It is worth a try to approach the local USCIS and request a temporary EAD, but as far as I know, USCIS has stopped issuing such temporary cards.
It is important that you do not work in-between the expiry date of old EAD and start date of new EAD, so it is better to ask for unpaid leave for such time, though there is no need to quit the job. If the work demands are heavy, you may want to continue working as per 245k (but you will have to pay 1000 USD as fine), see the discussion here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/20566-new-245-k-memo-released-with-more-clarifications.html).
Good luck!
more...
peer123
04-03 07:20 PM
Thanks for your inputs,... I welcome others thoughts and experience on this topic
2010 roxy wallpaper
Prashanthi
06-29 01:28 PM
I have questions on the facts of your case, you say that a recruiter signed a contract on your behalf?, how is that possible?, the contract would then be between the recruiter and your employer, unless you signed a separate contract with the recruiter agreeing to certain terms and conditions, also it is not clear if your recruiter is in the US or in Phillipines, many other aspects are not very clear. Therefore i gave you a general response as to what happens in these situations, if you need a more specific response to your questions, i suggest that you consult an attorney over the phone or in person, it would make more sense to look at the contract in question and then give you advice on your problem.
more...
Queen Josephine
June 18th, 2005, 10:06 PM
In the words of William F. Buckley Jr..... some of my first instincts are reprehensible! Glad you finally got CS2....How are you liking it so far? (It IS out of the box isn't it?)
hair roxy logo wallpaper. roxy logo
theperm
08-08 06:40 PM
where ever u r getting ur info from shree19772000 ...I soooooooooooooooo hope it is true !!! :D
more...
smuggymba
07-28 02:26 PM
Your Payments When You Are Outside The United States (http://ssa.gov/international/countrylist4.htm) ??? What does this mean .... looks like you can claim benefits.
hmm..we need to double check then. there was a huge discussion here, can u search that thread...i'll check also
hmm..we need to double check then. there was a huge discussion here, can u search that thread...i'll check also
hot Tags: htc roxy wallpaper#i39,
geniousatwork
09-22 08:46 PM
My AP was approved on Sep2. Still awaiting the AP in mail.
more...
house roxy logo wallpaper. apple
HereIComeGC
03-26 01:49 PM
How did you come to this conclusion?
From previous experiences, USCIS will work like crazy and use up all
visa numbers for EB2. Like they did last September - approving 60000 or so appplications.
From previous experiences, USCIS will work like crazy and use up all
visa numbers for EB2. Like they did last September - approving 60000 or so appplications.
tattoo 2010 more roxy wallpaper. roxy
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
pictures more roxy wallpaper. roxy
skark
08-22 10:53 AM
I applied for EAD renewal at TSC on June 24 with a pending EB3 I485 pending at NSC. I still have not got an approval for EAD renewal!
Is anyone else in the same boat got their EAD approved?
Did I send my application to the wrong service center, I live in North Carolina?
I know several other people that got their EAD renewal application approved at TSC and these people applied about a month later than me!!!
Please advise :confused:
Is anyone else in the same boat got their EAD approved?
Did I send my application to the wrong service center, I live in North Carolina?
I know several other people that got their EAD renewal application approved at TSC and these people applied about a month later than me!!!
Please advise :confused:
dresses roxy logo wallpaper. top deck
hebron
06-14 03:09 PM
Refer this:
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
Thank you gc28262 for sharing that link. Very informative. I have a question though about that case study: This paragraph is confusing - "Raj learned that the CIS will not allow him to substitute his new I-140 into his pending EB3 adjustment of status (AOS) application. Instead, they require a new AOS filing. Knowing the the CIS can take years to process an AOS application, even when the applicant's priority date is current at all times, he decided to opt for overseas consular processing."
Does this infer that If my current employer decides to file EB2 PERM application and I-140, I will have to wait till the priority date (Priority date for the new EB2 PERM) becomes current? Can I not use my September 2004 priority date and file I-485?
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
Thank you gc28262 for sharing that link. Very informative. I have a question though about that case study: This paragraph is confusing - "Raj learned that the CIS will not allow him to substitute his new I-140 into his pending EB3 adjustment of status (AOS) application. Instead, they require a new AOS filing. Knowing the the CIS can take years to process an AOS application, even when the applicant's priority date is current at all times, he decided to opt for overseas consular processing."
Does this infer that If my current employer decides to file EB2 PERM application and I-140, I will have to wait till the priority date (Priority date for the new EB2 PERM) becomes current? Can I not use my September 2004 priority date and file I-485?
more...
makeup roxy logo wallpaper
spicy_guy
09-08 10:55 AM
Good atleast we can have jobs, fr..ing last couple of years tired of loosing jobs because of Outsourcing companies. Waiting for GC from 9 years and now struggling to keep the job because of Outsourcing. Big F for OS
If you were in India, you would have asked for more OS. huh?
If you were in India, you would have asked for more OS. huh?
girlfriend roxy logo wallpaper. roxy logo
ramus
08-15 12:41 PM
Thanks for your contribution and willing to take part in DC rally.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
hairstyles Roxy surfing - Roxy Wallpaper
arunmohan
11-15 12:20 AM
My designation with current job is software engineer and i am getting an offer with designation DBA.does it fall in same or similar catagory.I am switching job using AC21 rule . gurus help
optimist
09-30 09:53 AM
Thank you folks, for sharing your thoughts!
thomachan72: Ideally, what you are saying is the best thing to do. But somehow we ended up bringing our goodies here and now we are worried about being harassed by customs when we land in India with all the jewellery :(
By the way, I checked the Indian Customs website (BAGGAGE RULES (http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/formatted-htmls/cs-rulef.htm)) and the limits on jewellery that can be brought in duty-free is:
<quote>
(i) upto an aggregate value of Rs. 10,000 by a gentleman passenger
(ii) Upto aggregate value of Rs. 20,000 by a lady passenger.
</quote>
How generous, isn't it?? :eek:
Any one else, with good/bad experiences to share about this ?
.
.
thomachan72: Ideally, what you are saying is the best thing to do. But somehow we ended up bringing our goodies here and now we are worried about being harassed by customs when we land in India with all the jewellery :(
By the way, I checked the Indian Customs website (BAGGAGE RULES (http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/formatted-htmls/cs-rulef.htm)) and the limits on jewellery that can be brought in duty-free is:
<quote>
(i) upto an aggregate value of Rs. 10,000 by a gentleman passenger
(ii) Upto aggregate value of Rs. 20,000 by a lady passenger.
</quote>
How generous, isn't it?? :eek:
Any one else, with good/bad experiences to share about this ?
.
.
VivekAhuja
11-25 11:27 PM
CIR must be defeated. It has no benefits for legal immigrants but only for illegal immigrants. Worksite enforcement must be increased to make it impossible for illegal immigrants to make a living in the USA. If not, USA will become like Mexico and USA will lose it's magnet for attracting the world's best!
The economic basis for CIR is stupid. Illegals can still pay taxes using a TIN number. Most illegals make minimum wage - some might not even fall under the preview of the US tax law.
CIR is only a way for hispanic politicians to gain ground in the US. 90% of US problems are because of illegal immigration. Imagine if we have 15 million illegals legal - now, they are no longer doing jobs tha Americans want to do but they feel (and are probably going get fast track) like they are American citizens and demand non-farm American jobs. The whole cycle is stupid.
The economic basis for CIR is stupid. Illegals can still pay taxes using a TIN number. Most illegals make minimum wage - some might not even fall under the preview of the US tax law.
CIR is only a way for hispanic politicians to gain ground in the US. 90% of US problems are because of illegal immigration. Imagine if we have 15 million illegals legal - now, they are no longer doing jobs tha Americans want to do but they feel (and are probably going get fast track) like they are American citizens and demand non-farm American jobs. The whole cycle is stupid.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar