Mike Tyson Tattoos

CNBC. They are also airing a programme on immigration at 8pm eastern.

Its about Illegal immigration only

8:00pm - 9:00pm, NBC (23)
Tom Brokaw Reports
The journalist travels to the Colorado Rockies to reveal the real story of illegal immigration; Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) discusses his opposition t…

You asked me and i tell you this. This news article was written by well known journalists around the world. His name is Robert Fisk. Just read this to get some understanding.

Robert Fisk: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask. This is not published in any Muslim media but one of the well known in Britain called "The Independent". You won't read such things in CNN or Fox or BBC.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html

I don't like either of that 2 sides, they are just a torn on this earth.
But you know what, don't expect peace if you use violence to obtain it.
It'll won't work and never will.

I don't think Rolling flood is debating the eligibility of 5 years experience post Bachelors for EB2. The point here is about porting which enables one to retain the priority date from the EB3 application which maybe required Bachelors + 0 years. To balance things out why not give a person who acquires a Masters or PhD a few years in terms of priority date.

Note that I have no personal gain from any of the above happening. :)

........ RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.

That's true. We should not look at buying a house as a sound investment because it is really not. I bought a house for my own happiness and satisfaction of a living a nice life in my lifetime.

What would I do with the tons of money invested somewhere else while I live in an apartment? Most probably, I would just spend it on vacation, travel the whole world, or probably lose some of the returns in buying a nice home at inflated price in the future.

I completely agree with you. Just as s side note I am also planning on buying in a year or two, as my daughter gets older and needs more playing toys. She certainly can't do that in the apartment we live in now. I will be looking for something in my current rent range.

Unfortunately, there are no simple answers. Mortgage rates are tied to 10 year bond rate, so they generally are not affected much by short term fed rate. With credit crunch, bond market is in real bad shape.
Fed is trying to supply short term funds to ease this crunch. I don't know how low Fed will go for this. What I am seeing is mortgage rates being stable or going down a little in near term bcoz of Fed easing. For long term, I believe rates will go up as bonds have to become attractive to get new investors.This may not be the best ( absolute bottom) but definitely very good time to refinance if it makes sense for your conditions.
For first time buyers like me, there are a lot of parameters to be considered. In my opinion the parameters are tilted towards faster house price drop . Hence I am waiting at least for a year. I will not do anything till next spring.
> Hence I am waiting at least for a year. I will not do anything till next spring.
Perfect ....exactly the same timeline for me too. I guess by that time GC picture and economy picture will be more clear too !!
This is from CEO of Lennar builders
------------
"Lower consumer confidence has quieted demand among prospective homebuyers and deterred them from a buying decision, while contraction in the lending markets has reduced the availability of credit for those prospective homebuyers that do wish to buy a home," CEO Stuart Miller said in a statement.

Miller added that the glut of homes on the market continues to rise due to foreclosures and homeowners who have been forced to dump homes they can no longer afford.

"The housing industry continues to be impacted by an unfavorable supply and demand relationship, which restricts the volume of new home sales and, concurrently, depresses home prices in most markets across the country," he said.
--------------

I don't think that will be end of the world. H1B was answer to the xenophobia itself. It's beneficial to corporations and US economy but very bad for Indians who are being lured under wrong perception. People are getting temperory permits for jobs that basically happen to be of permanant nature.
When there happen to be 200K applications for 65K permits on day 1.. and folks from Microsoft and Google have to worry abt being able to keep geniuses they have hired.. something's gotta happen to separate wheat from chaff.. this will be it..!

What if you had to buy American? (http://money.msn.com/how-to-budget/what-if-you-had-to-buy-american.aspx) By Katherine Reynolds Lewis | MSN Money

Legions of patriotic Americans look for "made in USA" stickers before buying products, out of a desire to support the country's economy.

But what if we all were restricted to purchasing only those goods that were made in America?

Our homes would be stripped virtually bare of telephones, televisions, toasters and other electronics, and many of our favorite foods and toys would be gone, too. Say goodbye to your coffee or tea, and forget about slicing bananas into your breakfast cereal -- all three would become prohibitively expensive if we relied on only Hawaii to grow tropical crops.

We'd have to trash our beloved Apple products because the iPod, iPad and MacBook aren't made in the U.S. Gasoline would double or triple in price, given that we now import more than 60% of our oil. And you couldn't propose to your true love with a diamond ring: There are no working diamond mines in the U.S.

Moreover, a complete end to imports would actually hurt the U.S. economy, because consumers and domestic companies would lose access to cheap goods. Trade protections, whether through tariffs or quotas, cost the economy roughly $2 for every $1 in additional profit for domestic producers, said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

"If we restricted trade to just the 50 states, what would happen immediately -- and would increase over time -- would be a huge reduction in our standard of living, because we wouldn't have access to the cheap goods we get from other countries," Perry said. "We also wouldn't have any export markets, so companies like Caterpillar and Microsoft would have a huge reduction in sales and workforce."

So what do we make of heartfelt pleas to save U.S. manufacturing by buying American, or the many websites (see one here) that catalog U.S. sources for an array of products? Or the Buy American Act, which curbs government purchases of products that are made overseas?

Do such efforts actually hurt the country they're trying to help?

The argument for buying American

Marc Kruskol, 53, a publicist based in Palmdale, Calif., goes out of his way to purchase products that are made in the U.S. because of his concern over the decline in manufacturing employment.

"I truly believe that we could go a long way towards fixing the economy if we would just put people to work making things in this country that are made in other places," said Kruskol, who spends hours scouring made-in-America websites or visiting brick-and-mortar stores in search of U.S. products.

He recently spent $10 on a pair of salad tongs made in America, which he tracked down in a restaurant supply store, after rejecting 99-cent foreign-made tongs. And he was happy to spend $650 on a domestically produced barbecue grill rather than a $450 imported one, just to support his countrymen.

But financial experts say that it's best for America if you buy the cheapest product you can find without sacrificing quality. Their explanation rests on the concept of efficient manufacturing. An efficient producer creates the most valuable goods with the least possible expense, selling those items at lower prices than competitors who are less efficient. A country benefits when its manufacturers become more efficient.

When you spend more on an equivalent product simply because it's made in the U.S., you're wasting your money -- and supporting an inefficient manufacturer that, by rights, should become more efficient or go out of business. Moreover, the additional $9.01 or $200 that Kruskol had spent on an inefficient U.S. producer could have been spent on something else, helping the economy further. Or it could have stayed in his savings account and been funneled by his bank into the financial system, which in theory allocates capital to the most efficient producers.

"He gave effectively $9 to an inefficient producer to motivate them to keep producing inefficiently," said Ken Fisher, the founder and CEO of Fisher Investments in Woodside, Calif., and the author of "Debunkery." "I understand the well-intentioned view. Doing that would be terrible for America."

The most efficient producers are best-positioned to create more jobs and return profits to their investors, and to the government in the form of tax revenue. "We make the country better by allocating resources towards the ones that can use them best," Fisher said.

The complex manufacturing question

At the heart of the issue are the interconnected global economy and the changes in the manufacturing sector.

There's no question that U.S. manufacturers employ far fewer people now -- about 11.7 million in April -- than when the sector peaked at 19.6 million workers in 1979. But the decline in jobs is largely due to technological advances that have reduced the number of workers needed to run factories, Perry and Fisher pointed out. The average worker today is responsible for $180,000 of manufacturing output, triple the inflation-adjusted $60,000 of 1972, Perry said.

Despite that increase in productivity, a March report by IHS Global Insight put China's manufacturing output ahead of the U.S. for the first time ever, at $2 trillion in 2010, compared with $1.95 trillion for the U.S. That's up from $1.69 trillion for China and $1.733 trillion for the U.S. in 2009, based on U.S. and Chinese government data.

But Perry argued that exchange-rate fluctuations and differences in data sources caused the IHS Global report to skew the comparison between the U.S. and China. Based on U.N. data for 2009, the most recent available, the United States' manufacturing output was 14% ahead of China's, he said.

Moreover, as manufacturing has declined as a share of the U.S. economy while the service sector has grown, most of the world has followed the same trend. The proportion has held steady in China.

"We've left the Machine Age, and we're in a new Information Age. It makes sense that manufacturing would be less important," Perry said, noting that as other countries have taken over clothing and other low-end manufacturing, the U.S. has become more competitive in producing pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace technology, industrial machinery and medical equipment. "We're still world leaders and at the cutting edge of those higher-skilled, higher-valued-added areas."

Not convinced yet? The other conundrum in trying to buy only U.S.-made products lies in what that really means.

Do you accept products that are assembled in America but contain components from all over the globe? For example, U.S. companies in February imported $58 billion worth of industrial supplies, such as petroleum and plastics, and $40 billion in capital goods, from computers to engines and laboratory equipment.

What about products that are assembled in China yet include parts from U.S. suppliers and were designed by American engineers? Every time you purchase such an item, the money will flow back to those American engineers and suppliers.

Cars.com's American-Made Index illustrates U.S. industries' complex trade relationships. The website ranks vehicles built and purchased in the U.S. based on sales, the origin of the cars' parts and whether assembly was in the U.S. The top two cars -- Toyota Camry and Honda Accord -- are produced by Japanese companies through their U.S. subsidiaries.

"On the surface, it seems like it might be plausible to have these 'made in the USA' campaigns," Perry said. "It all gets real tricky in a global economy with parts."

When buying American helps

That's not to say you should ignore the origins of the goods you buy.

When comparing two products of equivalent price and quality, feel free to choose the U.S.-made one out of domestic pride. It may make sense to buy a U.S.-made product if the quality or safety is superior.

Alex Kaplan, 41, the owner of Celebrity Laser Spa in Los Angeles, recently bought a pair of ottomans online for $120, only to find them cracked and cheaply made. After returning the made-in-China set, he found a craftsman through Etsy who made similar ottomans for $160 but allowed customers to choose the fabrics.

"It's much more satisfying," said Kaplan, whose blog chronicles his attempts to find products made in the U.S. "The most important thing when it comes to buying American is being aware and asking yourself, 'Where is this made?'"


Is College a Rotten Investment?
Why student loans are not like subprime mortgages. (http://www.slate.com/id/2293766/)
By Annie Lowrey | Slate

Why should anybody listen to this guy? This guy doesnt really represent the facts.

The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.

Oh, and I think I should elaborate just a little more.

I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.

Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.

My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.

Thanks again,

You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.

it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.

Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.

btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.

Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.

Because when Eb3 ROW were getting approved they had no personal friends getting approved but suddenly now with Eb2 India moving forward they know people who will get GC soon and this hurts, when then see these people (friends) in temple or get together who will be (soon) GC holders and so this cry of fowl play comes in behind the mask of anonymus user id a vieled attack


Woah, I did not know I wanted my GC because I could tell my friends that I have my GC. Thanks for telling me about it. I used to think that I wanted my GC, so that I could be worry less about H1 status, think about buying house, maybe think of some business ideas etc. I did not know it was all so that I will feel ashamed of my friends.

I guess you have the solution for all of use. We will stop my friendship with everyone, that way we dont have to worry about being the NON-GC guy among our "friends".

Also, we will make friends with the undocumented workers, so that we can feel superior, which will boost our morale.

How old is the technique of discrediting my links to win the argument. Of course, if I tell you of all the atrocities of Indian army in Kashmir, or punjab, or assam, to you I am a muslim, and my default I hate India. Of course, it wouldn't matter if good old amnesty internationl would raise a red flag against india...
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves

wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...

... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm

... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!

I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Thou_shalt_rise_again/articleshow/3882599.cms Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!

Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?

Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.

Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.

Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.

In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.

The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.

Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.

Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.

Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.

Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.

That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.

Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.

Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.

Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.

Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.

"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.

He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.

"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."

Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.

Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.

Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.

To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.

Hamas has to be blamed for civilian deaths as well.
Current propaganda by them portrays Hamas as innocent and puts all blame on Israel. Hamas has a history of using civilians as human shields. They are cruel even to their own people.

see these to believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBYtij4Q7sE

We should stop these EB3'ers from wasting USCIS resources. Probably make them wear yellow stars with "EB3" printed on it at all times. They should not be hired by any company unless they have hired EB2's with excellent credentials like rolling flood. No EB3 should buy a car, house or lead a normal life at the cost of hurting EB2's like yourself.

What kind of a sick immigration nazi are you ? Typical shallow minded mentality - "please please...(beg, beg) let me in but - stop everyone else from getting in (as soon as I am in)" ;-)

Instead of wasting your time filing a lawsuit why don't you apply your "excellent knowledge in your field" to get a Ph.D from your reputed alma mater do extraordinary research in your "great" field and then cut in line by applying for EB1 which I think will always be current. Then you can port your EB2 PD and enjoy the fruits of PD porting ;-)


cinqsit

You are wrong, see my post above. Even if you stay at same employer, your H1 wont be extended if you file for extension. If extension fails, its goodbye for employee and loss of employee and revenue for employer.

EVERYONE LOSES.

Thanks for the clarification.

"Originally Posted by lfwf
I have seen you post before, and with this post you lost some of my respect. You need to be rational and coherent if you want to debate the issue. Not emotional and silly."

More hollow rhetoric from lfwf... someone that fails to see coherent logic and arguments made out in posts and instead claims that there is none :). Maybe, Inglis is the prablem, eh? LOL.

Obviously, lfwf's 'respect' is worth a lot ;)

I've gotten my days worth of laughs reading these protectionist jokers' weak arguments and empty threats of lawsuits.

LOL!



see how stupid highly educated community is?.....the guy who started the thread is not writing anything and people are fighting......

the guy who wrote is definately not any of us i mean he is not in green card line.......

people chill.....

take it easy, when ur turn comes u will get ur gc.....try to participate in IV action item and donate if u can..

i am an EB3

The world is more worried about Militants getting their hands on Nukes and has some confidence in India's caution. Madeline Albright recently said pakistan is like a migraine for the world. How many times we have seen stories where leaders after leader, strategists after strategists express concerns that Militants may get the nuke trigger.
I believe the world has a stake in neutralizing Pak's Nukes. Do you believe the Nukes are partially controlled by US at present? Or is it Zardari who has the complete control?
I am ambivalent about eliminating Pakistan's nuclear program. On the one hand, you are right that nukes in the hands of militants is a scary scenario. (Ironically, you increase the probability of the nukes falling into wrong hands by having a destabilizing war between Pakistan and India.)
But then equally scary is a defenseless Pakistan against India. Atleast, thats our perception.
I don't know who all controls the nukes. The army is certainly one part of it.

There you go - "inflation"! This is another reason why investing in a house makes so much sense (iff your gc/job etc are sorted out).

Let's say you buy a house today for $300,000, and you're paying $2,000 towards your monthly mortgage. Even if you don't build too much equity on it because of the falling real estate, you will STILL come out better because inflation will make sure that your monthly payments of $2,000 in 2019 will really become $1,500 in today's money.

But if you continue to rent, you will pay let's say $2,000 today in rent, and 10 years from now you'll be paying $2,500, and you don't have a home to call your own!!!

During times of inflation, commodities, home, etc are the winners. you are partly correct in my view ....but to buy when prices are falling is a sure shot loser ...
even if prices are stable or lower than the rate of inflation ..you will be losing money on the cost of the house ( 300K + for many homebuyers ..since you pay interest on the cost of the house)..for home buying to be a good investment, it needs to appreciate more than the rate of inflation (that seems years away from now)

for e.g the person above who put in almost 80K in down payment ..
1) if that downpayment was invested in better way ..then he could easily get 10% returns (u need to do some homework though) ...that means around 600 - 700 per month.
so his effective rent is around 1200 per month.
2) 5 years from now, rent may still be the same (or lower) ... it depends a lot on supply and demand on rental units too
in majority of cases, we end up buying a house further away from our work ..that means additional 300 - 400 in gas and vehicle wear/tear per month.
add property taxes, HOA fees, extra utilities, mntc, realtor fees, termite, lawn maintenance, long term prospects of USA, immobility (additional 800 - 1500 dollars) etc etc and you can easily say that home buying / investment in real estate is not a good bet (in USA atleast).
if you are on temporary status - then add extra $200 - 300 risk premium per month as invisible risk cost (for risks plus extra headaches )
so home buying should be more of lifestyle choice and not an investment point of view (in countries like India, singapore it is different since demand will always be strong for a long long time).

1. 245(k) is applicable automatically for all eb I-485. There is no penalty fee for 245(k).

2. Each I-485 application is independent for out of status issues. Does not matter Primary or Dependent.

3. Needs more information. A person can be out of status even with pay-checks. Example: H-1B LCA location is different from actual job location, putting him/her out of status.

_____________________
Not a legal advice.
You are right about the dependent/derivative thing - it was my misunderstanding.

The USCIS field manual on this: http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/USCIS%20Training%20Materials%20on%20Sec%20245(k).p df


Best explanation I found: http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news05/news05_0825.htm

245(k) reads:

"(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C), under section 203(b)(4)) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--

(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;

(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--

(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;

(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or

(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission."

Unauthorized Employment
Subject to INA �245(i) and 245(k), applicants for adjustment of status who have engaged in unauthorized employment on or after January 1, 1977 are barred from adjustment of status pursuant to INA �245(c)(2). Unauthorized employment is a bar to adjustment of status to persons who engaged in unauthorized employment even after their adjustment application was filed. This bar does not apply to employment-based petitions where person worked no more than 180 days without permission since his last entry into the U.S. [INA �245(k)]. Immediate relatives and special immigrants described in INA ��101(a)(27)(H), (I), (J), or (K) are also exempt from this bar.

1. Insurers Prepare a Battle Strategy to Protect a Key Exemption (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142.html).

2. Lobbying Winner -- and Loser (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142_2.html).

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the affiliated U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform have broken their own record for expenditures on lobbying. Their combined total skyrocketed to $49.2 million for the second half of 2006, more than double the $23.5 million they reported for the first six months of the year. The latest six-month period shattered their earlier record of $30.1 million, set during 2004's first half, PoliticalMoneyLine said.

The institute, which alone spent $17.8 million in the second half of 2006, does all manner of lobbying and research to fight trial lawyers. The rest of the Chamber buys issue advertising and houses a stable of lobbyists and policy analysts.

By contrast, the National Association of Manufacturers -- the Chamber's onetime rival -- spent just $3.6 million in the second half of 2006, down dramatically from $9.6 million in the year's first six months. NAM said the 63 percent decline resulted from its withdrawal from lobbying on the asbestos bill that it wanted but failed to get.

NAM was outpaced in lobbying expenditures in last year's second half by a wide range of groups and individual companies. Twenty of these spent more than $5 million during the period.

Resolve To End Hyper-Partisanship (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/resolve_to_end_hyperpartisansh.html) By Mort Kondracke | Roll Call, December 20, 2007

Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.

Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.

Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.

If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.

It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.

Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."

Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.

More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.

Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.

Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.

"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."

Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.

But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.

Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."

But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.

He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.

But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.

"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.

"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.

Think about it over Christmas.