Saturday, June 11, 2011

girls generation in japan

images girls generation cd. girls generation in japan. Girls#39; Generation Japanese
  • Girls#39; Generation Japanese


  • s_r_e_e
    08-05 08:20 PM
    One more in same boat here .. EB3 India approval email received.. Dependent not approved , RFE for photos on EAD application .. EAD expires in one month ... lot of frustrations and trouble on my way I guess!!!!




    wallpaper Girls#39; Generation Japanese girls generation in japan. idols Girls#39; Generation
  • idols Girls#39; Generation


  • mheggade
    07-17 02:10 PM
    My suggestion would be.

    If your PD is After Jan 2004, you better get started and look for a position in EB2. If your PD is before Jan 2004, you wait and watch until end of this year and then make a informed decision. But in the long run , it makes lot of sense to be in EB2 if your job requirement is eligible for it.

    Also take a look at the trend of the PERM processing. as per 2007 stats 40% of the cases got struck in audit process.




    girls generation in japan. in Girls Generation#39;s Gee
  • in Girls Generation#39;s Gee


  • engineer
    06-30 09:31 PM
    I loved Fragomen. Very responsive and are working over weekends to expedite applications..

    I highly recommend them.




    2011 idols Girls#39; Generation girls generation in japan. resist Girls#39; Generation
  • resist Girls#39; Generation


  • Karthikthiru
    06-08 03:46 PM
    I would definitely agree that even if CIR comes back it has lot of negative things for people who are comming legally like us. We need to think of a different strategy which does not require a legislation which brings lot of attention against us. I can personally say that I will atleast add 10 more members with recurring contributions in a short time. Right now I will double or triple by monthly recurring contributions. I do agree with the core members that we do need lot of money now to lobby. There are are communities which I don't want to say publicly - even though there are in small numbers they have laws passed in favour of them. It is very simple - we need the MONEY POWER

    Karthik



    more...

    girls generation in japan. 0005_girls-generation-on-elle-
  • 0005_girls-generation-on-elle-


  • diptam
    06-26 02:04 PM
    What do we do now ??

    Do we have an advantage even after filing 485 ??




    girls generation in japan. [Live] Girls#39; Generation
  • [Live] Girls#39; Generation


  • vineet
    04-25 06:57 PM
    Thanks Folks for your hardwork and dedication to IV!

    Paypal Unique Transaction ID #3VS58834AL489170N



    more...

    girls generation in japan. Girls#39; Generation in Japan
  • Girls#39; Generation in Japan


  • Eternal_Hope
    06-13 10:09 PM
    excuse my unfamiliarity with the process..
    but if I applied for I485 in July, and 485 applications they receive exceeds the visa numbers available for July, what happens? Do they draw lottery to see which 485 apps would be cosidered?

    in other words, just making sure the app reaches USCIS in july first wekk, does it guarantee EAD for spouses?


    I have the same question - Do dependent spouses get EAD even if dates retrogress after applying for I-485?




    2010 in Girls Generation#39;s Gee girls generation in japan. girls generation cd.
  • girls generation cd.


  • piyushpan
    03-17 02:53 PM
    Hi,
    Based on the summary if you re-look at the student visa section of Bill Frist's bill

    `(2) STUDENT VISAS- Notwithstanding the requirement under paragraph (1)(C), an alien may file an application for adjustment of status under this section if--

    `(A) the alien has been issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(F)(iv), or would have qualified for such nonimmigrant status if section 101(a)(15)(F)(iv) had been enacted before such alien's graduation;

    `(B) the alien has earned an advanced degree in the sciences, technology, engineering, or mathematics;

    `(C) the alien is the beneficiary of a petition filed under subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 204(a)(1); and

    `(D) a fee of $1,000 is remitted to the Secretary on behalf of the alien.

    `(3) LIMITATION- An application for adjustment of status filed under this section may not be approved until an immigrant visa number becomes available.'.


    What this really means is a masters student can adjust to immigrant visa status although his visa application will get approved only when the visa is available. If i have understood this correctly this means that this is similar to the S-1932 provision wherein you can adjust your status although approval will happen only when immigrant visa is available.(provided one is masters)

    Or have i got this wrong?
    Comments? If i am interpreting this correctly it is another big boost for people who have either not worked 3 yrs as yet on H1B or have a masters degree unrelated to the profession they are working in.



    more...

    girls generation in japan. Album Jacket : Girls#39;
  • Album Jacket : Girls#39;


  • tikka
    05-31 03:10 PM
    Can everyone on this thread please take a minute and contribute.

    If you have already done so thank you so much!




    hair resist Girls#39; Generation girls generation in japan. Girls Generation (소녀시대,
  • Girls Generation (소녀시대,


  • walking_dude
    09-21 06:16 PM
    Is "Dog Ate my Boarding Pass" a valid excuse?

    PS : I attended the rally



    more...

    girls generation in japan. Yesterday, Korean girl group,
  • Yesterday, Korean girl group,


  • senthil1
    06-09 07:21 PM
    I can tell your case. If you apply now by EB you will get gc within 3 to 7 years time. If you apply by point system after 5 years of USA experience and you will have employer sponsor you will have 16 points more than those who are coming fresh to USA. So both point system and EB system you will get at the same time period. Process delay will be minimal as no labor or I140. But initial period there will be delays as it is entirely new and untested. We cannot compare EB and point system now. Only point system comes we will know the problems

    Right now, in the EB based system, the employer picks the applicant, not the Federal Government. Also, under the current system, even if the country is limited by quota, it is a soft quota. No matter how you see it, the current system attracts the best and brightest and rewards only only those who are physically in this country with the GC (EB based). how can that be compared to the merit based system which you claim would attract the 80%? Any tom/dick or harry can apply from any country and get thru.

    What do you mean by "process delay being eliminated"? It would take years for USCIS to come up with an easy set of rules. Again, the per country quota would kick in. It would take eternity to get a GC under the merit system. I dont see any "merit" in that.




    hot 0005_girls-generation-on-elle- girls generation in japan. Girls#39; Generation On Elle Girl
  • Girls#39; Generation On Elle Girl


  • logiclife
    09-25 12:04 PM
    Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:



    The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)

    What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED.

    Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.

    Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).



    The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.

    The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).



    Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.


    What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.

    SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.

    Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.


    What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.



    more...

    house group Girls#39; Generation is girls generation in japan. Girls#39; Generation Japanese
  • Girls#39; Generation Japanese


  • needhelp!
    03-04 09:56 PM
    I have received a response on my request last year to USCIS for information on number of AOS applications pending. Here it is: http://download206.mediafire.com/xwcsdggj4yjg/blrmnntd10w/FOIA_USCISResponse.pdf (http://www.mediafire.com/?blrmnntd10w)
    --------------------------------------
    February 24, 2009
    NRC2008065126

    We received your request for information relating to Adjustment of Status applications in the employment-based category. You have specifically requested the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved, denied) filed with USCIS since 2001, for each of the following countries and categories:
    - EB-2 China
    - EB-2 India
    - EB-3 China
    - EB-3 India
    - EB-3 Mexico
    - EB-3 Philippines
    - EB-3 Rest of the World

    Your request is being handled under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C 552). It has been assigned the following control number: NRC2008065126. Please cite th is number in any further inquiry about this request.

    In order to extract the information you have requested, a customized computer program will be required. You will be charged for the time it takes to write the program as well as the time involved in running the query to extract the date. You will not be charged for duplication, review and search time. We estimate the cost to be $5000.00. Due to the time and effort involved, you will be asked to sign an advance fee agreement before we proceed with your request. In addition, a deposit of $2500.00 payable by check or money order, must be paid within 30 days of the date of this notification. Please make your check payable to the United States Treasury, Failure to submit the $2500.00 deposit within the time frame given will result in your request being administratively closed.

    In order to assure that we provide the information you seek in the format you have requested, we ask that you clarify the information sought. Employment based status is broken down into the following 14 categories.
    _____________

    NRC2008065126
    Page 2

    E21 203(b)(2) PROF/EXCPTNL ABILITY
    E22 SPOUSE OF ES1 OR E21
    E23 CHILD OF ES1 OR E21
    E26 203(b)(2) PROF/EXCPTNL ABILITY
    E27 SPOUSE OF ES6
    E28 CHILD OF ES6
    E30 203(b)(3) CHILD OF E36, E37
    E31 203(b)(3)(A)(i) SKILLED WORKER
    E32 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) PROFESSIONAL
    E34 203(b)(3)(A) SPOUSE OF E31, E32
    E35 203(b)(3)(A) CHILD OF E31, E32
    E36 203(b)(3)(A)(i) SKILLED WORKER
    E37 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) PROFESSIONAL
    E39 203(b)(3)(A) SPOUSE OF E36, E37

    Are you asking tha the information we provide be broken down into the categories listed above, or may we group all EB-2 categories and ass EB-3 categories together?

    Please define priority date.

    You have asked for information concerning the country of chargeability. This information is not assigned until the application is approved or denied. Since you have requested information on pending applications only, this information is not available.

    If you have any questions concerning your pending FOIA/PA request, please address them to this office, Attention: FOIA/PA Officer, or call us at 816-350-5570, or fax any FOIA/PA related correspondence to 816-350-5785.

    Sincerely,

    T. Diane Cejka
    Director

    ___________________________

    I will post a scan tomorrow

    From what I understand, they aren't able to get the numbers by country of chargeablility.

    Its funny they are asking me to define priority date ! :)

    ____________________________
    Here is the original letter template sent to USCIS

    FOIA Request for number of pending Employment based AOS/I-485 Applications

    John Doe,

    200 Main Street,

    Chicago,IL,60001

    National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
    P. O. Box 648010
    Lee’s Summit, MO 64064-8010

    Dear FOIA officer,
    Several Employment based categories have been retrogressed for 4 years now and the exact number of pending AOS applications sorted by priority dates in the employment-based category is unknown. Department of state has been establishing the cut off in priority dates based on educated guesses and approximations. DOS and none of the Employment based applicants know the number of applications pending per category, per country sorted by priority dates. DOS visa office expressed similar concern in Oct 08 bulletin.

    “Little if any forward movement of the cut-off dates in most Employment categories is likely until the extent of the CIS backlog of old priority dates can be determined.”

    This information would be helpful in determining the priority dates accurately and in determining when a visa number will be available for a given priority date in a certain category. I request you to provide me with the number of pending employment based AOS applications, (excluding approved/denied) in the following categories sorted on a priority date basis from 2001.

    EB-2 China & India: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now

    EB-3 China, India, Mexico & Philippines & Rest of the World: Number of employment based AOS applications pending with USCIS sorted by priority date on a yearly basis from year 2001 till now
    Thanks,

    John Doe.




    tattoo [Live] Girls#39; Generation girls generation in japan. [GIRLS GENERATION 1ST JAPAN
  • [GIRLS GENERATION 1ST JAPAN


  • hebron
    06-15 06:58 PM
    Hi, I have a question about PERM labor process. How soon can an employer apply PERM labor certification after hiring an employee?



    more...

    pictures Girls#39; Generation in Japan girls generation in japan. 0008_girls-generation-on-elle-
  • 0008_girls-generation-on-elle-


  • TheOmbudsman
    11-08 12:05 PM
    Hi Nycgal369,

    I am not your buddy :-)

    That's nothing new that Dems are pro amnesty. I am not arguing against that. Nancy Pelosi already said something in that regard I think. What I refute is the argument portrayed by misinformed members that the shift in power was caused significantly by the anti illegal alien position. It is not true. That's all I am saying.

    Contrary to belief of some members, I am not disappointed with this. I will continue to be your Ombudsman as usual and report everything, probably you will hear more good news for those who believe that amnesty is the way to go. Facts are facts. I am not here to defend any side.


    Thanks,

    The Ombudsman
    "Your dose of daily reality"

    buddy I dont know if you watched chris matthews last
    night interviewing many dems who won. Several mentioned immigration reform as part of their mandate




    dresses Girls#39; Generation On Elle Girl girls generation in japan. Girls#39; Generation, whom are
  • Girls#39; Generation, whom are


  • Macaca
    09-21 08:26 PM
    But I kept my plans to attend as I booked my tickets (40 days in advance). I talked at the lawmakers's offices on two days non-stop for 20 minutes, occasionally flashing my handkerchief.

    and introduced me with a bull horn for 30 minutes, at the Washigton Monument!



    more...

    makeup Album Jacket : Girls#39; girls generation in japan. group Girls#39; Generation is
  • group Girls#39; Generation is


  • Jaime
    09-14 03:52 PM
    Change your mind and come to DC!!! We can succeed together!!!!!




    girlfriend [GIRLS GENERATION 1ST JAPAN girls generation in japan. to Girls#39; Generation,
  • to Girls#39; Generation,


  • nixstor
    03-20 11:10 PM
    Well, which interpretation? The one from April '08 or from November '05? They substantially differ. That's part of the controversy. What motivated them to change it?

    I do think that the interpretation is, at least, debatable, and I can see both interpretations. In the end, the question comes down to: does the country limit have priority over the EB category, and I don't think you can have a conclusive answer.



    But it also doesn't say the opposite.



    It also states: if Visas available. You can certainly construe the case that Visas can only be available if they cannot be assigned to a lower category. 202 (a) (5) (B) actually states that only in application of 202 (e), Visas should be deemed to be required. Does that mean they are not required otherwise? 203(b) actually uses the same terminology to allow non-required visas to fall through.

    Historically, before AC-21 was added, Visa numbers were wasted because they needed to be assigned in proportion. Irrespective of the interpretation of 202 (a) (5) this cannot happen with AC-21.

    Snips from Nov 05 Bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2712.html)

    The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.

    >> As per my understanding, When there are no per country limits, It can be assigned to any one with oldest PD. Not that it is working like that with USCIS. As I said, before in my previous post, we can imagine these visa numbers tagged with the category name beside them. <<

    During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.

    To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.

    >> Just to let you know before you think I am biased towards one thing or the other, I haven't looked at the text of the INA until a week before and for the past 2 years I have heard the same story that country limits trump category. I have spoken with an attorney and he expressed above similar opinion where we might not have noticed how numbers were overflowing and NOT overflowing to demand or lack of demand. Either way, This is not a panacea for the problem at hand as there is no clarity what so ever in either procedures. <<




    hairstyles Yesterday, Korean girl group, girls generation in japan. [Perf] Girls#39; Generation
  • [Perf] Girls#39; Generation


  • deepak
    08-07 05:27 PM
    I agree, India is a far better option.

    Assuming this discussion is about immigration/permanent-settlement and not about short term visits, work and study.

    On the side note, The only problem faced in india is over population which triggers almost all other issues. If india implements onechildpolicy most of the problems faced today will disappear in few decades. Your child (note: singular) need not leave india to enjoy international level lifestyle & benefits.

    As a backup plan to greencard advocacy we need to lobby the indian government to implement onechildpoilcy immediately.

    You do realise that one of the biggest reasons for India's rapid growth is it's population right? It is both a boon and a curse. And if you "enforce" a one child policy, there will be a rapid decline in population. There will be major social problems, what happens to a couple if their only child dies in teenage?. Apart from obvious social issues (kids will have fewer cousins and fewer relatives), the biggest problems will arise in 30 years when the severely depleted young populace will have to support the huge number of retired old workers either directly through parental support or indirectly through taxes.
    Think of your old age too, these solutions look interesting, but it will kill the very reasons that make India attractive today.
    A gradual stabilization of population by encouraging families to have just two children through social programs is the way to go and I think India has done a good job of it in the last 2-3 decades. These things take time.

    And before you quote China's "significant progress", 25 years later, they are going through a lot of issues. For example, take a look at this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/world/asia/25shanghai.html




    mundada
    01-12 04:53 PM
    Here is the history of derivative acts under 14th amendment related to employement:

    14th Amendment of the United States Constitution: guarantees due process and equal protection under the laws.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Section 1981: covers race-based discrimination by employers. Individuals may sue to assert their rights under this Act; which, unlike Title VII, has no limitation on back-pay liability.

    The Civil rights Act of 1871, Section 1983: provides persons who believe they have been deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws to redress and holds those responsible for the deprivation liable to the person injured.

    Equal Pay Act of 1963: forbids pay differentials based on sex. It covers all employees who come under the Fair Labor Standards Act, plus executive, administrative, professional employees and outside sales people. Investigation and compliance responsibilities were transferred from the Labor Department to the EEOC on July 1, 1979.

    Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: bans discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It covers all terms and conditions of employment; and, it holds employers responsible for any discrimination that goes on within the employer's organization. Title VII is administered by the EEOC and covers employers with 15 or more employees.
    Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): bans employment discrimination because of age against anyone 40 years of age and older, (also know as ADEA). Investigation and compliance responsibilities were transferred from the Labor Department to the EEOC on July 1, 1979.

    Executive Order 11246: requires Federal contractors to include a nondiscrimination clause in all contracts and subcontracts in excess of $110.000 and all construction projects financed, even in part, with Federal funds. Revised Order No. 4 requires a written affirmative action program from contractors with 50 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more. This order is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor.

    Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Section 503 requires employers with government contracts and subcontracts of $2,500 or more to take affirmative action for qualified handicapped individuals. The regulations implementing the Act require "reasonable accommodation" to the physical and mental limitations of handicapped employees and applicants. Section 504 covers the employment practices of all recipients of Federal financial assistance, a broad spectrum of agencies and institutions from private employers operating under a Federal grant, to public schools, colleges and universities. Both Sections 503 and 504 are enforced by the OFCCP.

    Pregnancy Discrimination Act: amends Title VII and states that employment discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions is prohibited under Title VII. According to EEOC, the amendment, which affects those employers under the jurisdiction of Title VII, requires that "persons affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions be treated the same as persons affected by other temporary disabilities."

    South Carolina Human Affairs Law: prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, age, sex, disability and national origin.

    Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): gives protections to qualified individuals with disabilities that are like those provided under Title VII. It also guarantees equal opportunity in employment, public accommodations, transportation, state/local government services and telecommunication. ADA is enforced by EEOC.

    1991 Civl Rights Act of 1991: allows employees to seek compensatory and punitive damages and for trial-by-jury. (this amends Title VII.)

    =====

    Now the way I interpret it, the requirement to not discriminate based on place of birth is protected by constitution under 14th amendment.

    The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

    Furthermore, the precedent rulings related to The Civil Rights Act of 1964 indicate how strictly this is interpreted and enforced. For example, in 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.

    I therefore believe there is a good chance at the Supreme Court ruling that because of long wait times of more than 3 years for a Green Card plus requirement of same or similar job during that long wait until the green card is received plus country quota affecting people born only in few countries leads to disadvantage for people of these few countries at work.

    And yes, even I took law course and gave a seminar during my MBA. But even you would concur that this course at best is basic and does not make a person authority of the US legal system.

    Finally, forget me or you, even a lawyer cannot say for sure what the final ruling will be in any case. And hence the best a person can do is give an educated opinion. In addition by human nature, the way I would interpret laws would be to my advantage while the way you would interpret them would be to your advantage. And hence I can understand your biases (and mine as well) because in case the country quota is found illegal by the US Supreme Court, it is the ROW that is going to be affected the most.



    Don't want to pick on anyone one or anything.. just case-in-point to what I posted earlier.. here we have intense legal debates, and legal opinions with people who can not distinguish between Title VII and EEO which are legislative laws and between the constitution. These laws are not part of the constitution and they include provisions for federal and local governments and their agencies to override parts of rules if they deem necessary.




    Jaime
    09-04 07:15 PM
    Let's all do the same!



    No comments:

    Post a Comment