fasterthanlight�
06-06 03:50 PM
The Guidlines one and the Family Guy monkey are my favorites cause they make me laugh.
Yes!!!!!
Yes!!!!!
wallpaper 18 - The Badass Seed),
ilikekilo
07-21 10:43 AM
I still can't imagine Sen Hillary Clinton did not support legal immigrations..hmm, may be when we send it to Obama, he can take it up with his opponent to get her support too.. who knows, it is all a tricky issue
seahawks - obama did not even vote...smart...
seahawks - obama did not even vote...smart...
desi3933
06-25 12:34 PM
You could argue that you don't need to have a job now, just that you need to be in a "same or similar"position when the 485 is approved. if your priority date is very backlogged, you have lots of time to find a job.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
2011 Just adass
glus
03-19 09:25 AM
i am switching job using ac21. my current employer trusts immigration attorneys. and as expected attorneys suggested (since they get paid) that company should withdraws both H1 and I-140 after I leave. I know I am safe, however USCIS will definitly send me an RFE at time of processing my application and I will have to answer that. So I am trying to put my side to them saying that if it is optional, they should not.
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
NO, period.
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
NO, period.
more...
GCwaitforever
07-14 09:59 AM
If the provision to let people apply for I-485 without current PD passes, that takes away some pain related to waiting. Nobody can predict when EB3 will become current worldwide or country specific.
Green.Tech
09-24 01:47 PM
Thanks for the clear answer thepaew. That is what I thought. I currently have the opportunity to start the green card process with my employer under EB3 ROW, but I am also planning to go for an MBA in the US within the next few years. I am just into my 5th year of H1. It seems that I should not start the green card process if I am sure about going for an MBA in the US within the next few years. That would be terrible if you get into a school you like but cannot attend since you cannot switch from H1 to F1.
Seba,
If you don't plan to start your GC process for the next few years (waiting to enroll in an MBA program), how do you intend to extend your H-1 beyond the alloted 6-year time frame?
Seba,
If you don't plan to start your GC process for the next few years (waiting to enroll in an MBA program), how do you intend to extend your H-1 beyond the alloted 6-year time frame?
more...
raj1998
04-13 12:49 PM
I am not 100% sure but when you are on H1B should'nt you be working from where your LCA was approved for? In OP's case, its remote work but outside USA, in that case I am not sure
1. if the LCA filed will any longer be valid and that might cause issues with labor dept
2. what happens when USCIS finds out that you left the country and physically not present in USA and still running payroll in USA plus also the LCA is no longer valid, this might be an issue when your renewal comes up.
3.how your payroll can be run when you are not in the country?what are the tax implications? you need to have a physical address in US to file taxes, is'nt it? without an address in the specified location and specific state, you will be considered as non-resident.
when you file taxes as non-resident but a resident of a different country, then you will have to understand the tax treaties between the USA and the resident country and file taxes accordingly.
You might want to talk to an immigration attorney as well as someone who specializes in taxes(not just CPA, but an attorney who understands tax laws). I dont think this can be as simple as others mentioned. this is just my opinion and I could be wrong. talk to legal experts.
In my company 3 of my collegues are doing exactly this. All are representing US company in the offshore development centre. there payrolls are run here in US, they are in India and all there expenses are paid by US company. They pay taxes here in US show some friends address and there 485 is also in progress
I am on H1b and also travel a lot at times upto 4 months. (same LCA issue should be true for me also) but never had an issue....
But I hear you, so better check with an lawyer and have a complete picture, but as I say this is completely doable.
1. if the LCA filed will any longer be valid and that might cause issues with labor dept
2. what happens when USCIS finds out that you left the country and physically not present in USA and still running payroll in USA plus also the LCA is no longer valid, this might be an issue when your renewal comes up.
3.how your payroll can be run when you are not in the country?what are the tax implications? you need to have a physical address in US to file taxes, is'nt it? without an address in the specified location and specific state, you will be considered as non-resident.
when you file taxes as non-resident but a resident of a different country, then you will have to understand the tax treaties between the USA and the resident country and file taxes accordingly.
You might want to talk to an immigration attorney as well as someone who specializes in taxes(not just CPA, but an attorney who understands tax laws). I dont think this can be as simple as others mentioned. this is just my opinion and I could be wrong. talk to legal experts.
In my company 3 of my collegues are doing exactly this. All are representing US company in the offshore development centre. there payrolls are run here in US, they are in India and all there expenses are paid by US company. They pay taxes here in US show some friends address and there 485 is also in progress
I am on H1b and also travel a lot at times upto 4 months. (same LCA issue should be true for me also) but never had an issue....
But I hear you, so better check with an lawyer and have a complete picture, but as I say this is completely doable.
2010 Of withaug , cyberpunk adass
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
va_il
06-08 12:17 PM
No point in bashing Indian companies. As they are going political on this issue, my cousin just graduated from School and does not have a job, his dad thinks that his son lost his competitve spirit and is unable to compete for a job, while we all know the actual situation which is pathetic for new h1b seekers.
IV mebers - though our focus is on GC backlog and retrogression - lets all not forget that these are also big issues, especially new immigrants seeking h1b etc...
For those who do not care about families - tearing families is the worst thing that can ever happen and if you are on that side, you will understand the pain.
And for those who think CIR failed which is good for us - just think about the 12 million illegals and walk in their shoes - what goes through them - CIR is their only hope.
Right CIR is their only hope .... for a person who came illegally ... right ...and unfortunately they don't know if they cross the boarder illegally they will be separated from families .... not considering that is immoral on govt part ... :) :) :)
Grow up. These guys are even considering to allow them as legals only because these guys need a cheap labor .. not because they think it is moral .... irrespective of what they say in public stunt. Otherwise all those would have been booted in next sec.
IV mebers - though our focus is on GC backlog and retrogression - lets all not forget that these are also big issues, especially new immigrants seeking h1b etc...
For those who do not care about families - tearing families is the worst thing that can ever happen and if you are on that side, you will understand the pain.
And for those who think CIR failed which is good for us - just think about the 12 million illegals and walk in their shoes - what goes through them - CIR is their only hope.
Right CIR is their only hope .... for a person who came illegally ... right ...and unfortunately they don't know if they cross the boarder illegally they will be separated from families .... not considering that is immoral on govt part ... :) :) :)
Grow up. These guys are even considering to allow them as legals only because these guys need a cheap labor .. not because they think it is moral .... irrespective of what they say in public stunt. Otherwise all those would have been booted in next sec.
hair Mullet Hairstyles (7 of 68)
pappu
07-14 01:50 PM
This link didn't work for me either.
try
photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
try
photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7644/2582/1600/chart_alert7.11.2006.gif
more...
Saralayar
07-09 01:39 PM
Buddy,
Why you are so angry??. I know more than you about immigration and all the rules. you try to understand the English properly and the meaning. I hope you are from a very remote place in India. So for you to understand better, Here is the meanign fo my message.
GUYS, YOUR PRIORITY DATE IS 2006 and why you are asking for the premium processing when many of your friends are still waiting to file their I 140 or I 485.
Don't try to put harsh words in public forums. You will get them back as a Boomerang...... Understand?:mad:
Why you are so angry??. I know more than you about immigration and all the rules. you try to understand the English properly and the meaning. I hope you are from a very remote place in India. So for you to understand better, Here is the meanign fo my message.
GUYS, YOUR PRIORITY DATE IS 2006 and why you are asking for the premium processing when many of your friends are still waiting to file their I 140 or I 485.
Don't try to put harsh words in public forums. You will get them back as a Boomerang...... Understand?:mad:
hot very short haircuts for women
add78
05-19 03:52 PM
Good Morning.
hahahaha too funny.
hahahaha too funny.
more...
house life Badass cia lethal
trramesh
11-12 02:59 PM
Guys,
Pls participate in the survey for your own good. We need these figures to show the worth of our community to whom it may matter.
Pls participate in the survey for your own good. We need these figures to show the worth of our community to whom it may matter.
tattoo short length hair styles for
hsd31
03-17 07:24 AM
From your post it looks like option 1 is a no-go. You will waste more time and you will have to start back at square one again if the appeal is rejected (which it most likely will, given that the facts are against you). It will be more advisable to re-start the process and go with option 2.
I will also suggest that you get yourself a new lawyer. You should have never applied in EB-2 given you had a degree dated 2002.
I will also suggest that you get yourself a new lawyer. You should have never applied in EB-2 given you had a degree dated 2002.
more...
pictures indie,adass,hair,hair dye
MerciesOfInjustices
06-07 11:21 PM
Well said!
dresses ad on black hairstyles
leoindiano
11-09 08:17 PM
Right. Its his view of stem cells research in ancient india. Some article I read in net which excerpted from mahabharatha.
"It appears that the ancient Indians also had the ability to clone humans(it's very ironic that contemporary India is taking the lead in stem-cell research) In the Mahabharata, the queen Ghandari, who had pregnancy problems and after 2 years bore a pinda(ball of flesh) which was then handed over to a sage. He divided this ball of flesh into 100 parts and treated them with a chemical process, then put each part into a sealed cooling container for 2 years, from which 100 male babies were created."
Maybe some support.. :)
I am opposing STEM cell bill then, I dont want to see Kaurava's running around...::-)
"It appears that the ancient Indians also had the ability to clone humans(it's very ironic that contemporary India is taking the lead in stem-cell research) In the Mahabharata, the queen Ghandari, who had pregnancy problems and after 2 years bore a pinda(ball of flesh) which was then handed over to a sage. He divided this ball of flesh into 100 parts and treated them with a chemical process, then put each part into a sealed cooling container for 2 years, from which 100 male babies were created."
Maybe some support.. :)
I am opposing STEM cell bill then, I dont want to see Kaurava's running around...::-)
more...
makeup cristiano ronaldo hairstyle
seahawks
03-27 12:54 AM
you can volunteer for your future employer as long as there is no financial transactions involved.
girlfriend wallpaper prom hairstyles 2009
alg
12-11 01:47 PM
The first time, my husband and I were asked all kinds of questions by the secondary CIS officer at LAX, and was asked NOT to do our own copies of the original AP, that we are not supposed to do copies of official documents. He kept and use our copies anyway. The stamp in the AP extended it for a year after this entry.
Two weeks later, upon arriving again at LAX, the secondary CIS officer did not ask any questions and did not make copies of the AP. We just got another stamp on the original one extending its validity again for one year from date of entry. It went pretty fast.
Two weeks later, upon arriving again at LAX, the secondary CIS officer did not ask any questions and did not make copies of the AP. We just got another stamp on the original one extending its validity again for one year from date of entry. It went pretty fast.
hairstyles Helena Bonham Carter#39;s ad
pcs
01-21 05:10 PM
Please send email invitations to different associations though this link.....
http://www.going2usa.com/education/isa.html
This should get us a lot of young members
http://www.going2usa.com/education/isa.html
This should get us a lot of young members
gst76
02-19 12:52 PM
I don't know if it is mandatory rule but it definitely is a strong message from US Embassy in Canada. I registered for my trip to visit Canada in Oct 2006, but eventually backed out after reading this message. I don't know if the same message is still being shown or not.
pmat
02-15 11:20 AM
There are 2 kinds of posts...(1) Which add value to the forum. Threads started for 401K, selecting a lawyer etc add value since they attract new members. (2) The second kind of posts are the ones initiated by people who want to ask questions. This questions tend to be serving individuals.
I think we should not restrict the first type of posts. There could some kind of charge on the second kind. One suggestion which may work is as follows
1. Only paying members can initiate threads(or may be allow the first few for free ). Exceptions can be permitted by admins who can review if a post could be useful.
2. Anyone can post answers to existing threads.
By the way I am not sure of the technical aspect of the website operations. So please bear with me if my post reflects the same.
Don't think that it would work... people will start asking questions in existing threads instead of initiating new threads for questions. So the number of irrelevant posts in threads will increase. I can't think of any way by which it can be enforced. Also, people who don't want to pay any money will easily find other free sites to ask their questions.
I think we should not restrict the first type of posts. There could some kind of charge on the second kind. One suggestion which may work is as follows
1. Only paying members can initiate threads(or may be allow the first few for free ). Exceptions can be permitted by admins who can review if a post could be useful.
2. Anyone can post answers to existing threads.
By the way I am not sure of the technical aspect of the website operations. So please bear with me if my post reflects the same.
Don't think that it would work... people will start asking questions in existing threads instead of initiating new threads for questions. So the number of irrelevant posts in threads will increase. I can't think of any way by which it can be enforced. Also, people who don't want to pay any money will easily find other free sites to ask their questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment