viva
02-05 05:57 PM
I know you are not threatening to leave. But eventually some one will. It always happens when one or other item is included or excluded from agenda.
Anyways, this isnt about looking weak or strong against anti-immigrants. That is really not the issue here.
Its about how much we can have in our list of items. There is only so much anyone can do. Forget about us, even bigger organizations have priorities in order. Immigration Voice also has to have a priority. We cannot talk to anyone about fixing the H4 issues before the issues of retrogression are talked about. And we cannot talk about ALL OF THEM because there is room for only so much to talk about. There is a limit on everything. Limit on how much funds we have, limit on how much political capital does our lobbyist spend on our organization with lawmakers, limit on how much leverage the lawmaker uses to sponsor an amendment for us. No one has unlimited capacity to get things achieved. So in that sense, H4 issues really cannot be on the list. And as far as "nothing is happening, let's get temporary relief and let's not fight for more numbers" idea is concerned, we are already doing that by trying to get 485 filing provision done in next few days as a temporary relief. Now tell me, how is that not tied to H4s. EVERY SINGLE ITEM on our goals benefits H4 spouses indirectly. Including the short term goals of IV.
Logic - Do not get disheartened!!!!! IV will thrive.. Quality in membership is better than quantity.
Anyways, this isnt about looking weak or strong against anti-immigrants. That is really not the issue here.
Its about how much we can have in our list of items. There is only so much anyone can do. Forget about us, even bigger organizations have priorities in order. Immigration Voice also has to have a priority. We cannot talk to anyone about fixing the H4 issues before the issues of retrogression are talked about. And we cannot talk about ALL OF THEM because there is room for only so much to talk about. There is a limit on everything. Limit on how much funds we have, limit on how much political capital does our lobbyist spend on our organization with lawmakers, limit on how much leverage the lawmaker uses to sponsor an amendment for us. No one has unlimited capacity to get things achieved. So in that sense, H4 issues really cannot be on the list. And as far as "nothing is happening, let's get temporary relief and let's not fight for more numbers" idea is concerned, we are already doing that by trying to get 485 filing provision done in next few days as a temporary relief. Now tell me, how is that not tied to H4s. EVERY SINGLE ITEM on our goals benefits H4 spouses indirectly. Including the short term goals of IV.
Logic - Do not get disheartened!!!!! IV will thrive.. Quality in membership is better than quantity.
wallpaper cute quotes about smiles.
2ndJuly
09-17 02:09 PM
here how it will be considered:
first human--> followed by illegal immigrants-->next horses-->last and least aliens
first human--> followed by illegal immigrants-->next horses-->last and least aliens
desi485
02-18 04:06 PM
Niether many has tried this option (entering on AP and filing H1B transfer to different employer other than GC sponsers) nor USCIS has strong history of approving/dealing with these type of cases. After entering in AP, though one can very well contine the H1B with the same employer to whom any one work on H1B before leaving US. There is a memo for this type of situation. However, there is no specific memo to address this situation (Transfer). It is all depends on the individual adjucidator's logic. If they see your latest I-94 with parolee stamp, then they may deny (or issue a RFE )the H1B transfer, by the applying the the logic of one must be in the smae status to seek extension. If the deny/issue RFE, you can not counter act as there is no secific memo or policy by USCIS in this case.
Ramba:
if the transfer/extension of H1B gets rejected after travelled on AP, is it possible to move on EAD and continue working legally? I am talking worst case scenario here.
Although my lawyer confirmed that one can still have a valid H1B status after travelling using AP. My co-worder is still in doubt. Our corporate attorney seems to be clueless for this tricky situation.
Ramba:
if the transfer/extension of H1B gets rejected after travelled on AP, is it possible to move on EAD and continue working legally? I am talking worst case scenario here.
Although my lawyer confirmed that one can still have a valid H1B status after travelling using AP. My co-worder is still in doubt. Our corporate attorney seems to be clueless for this tricky situation.
2011 quotes about smiles and love
sundar99
02-22 10:00 AM
Hi Sobers,
Outstanding efforts. Also, not sure if you all agree ? if we get the NASCOM email id for karnik, perhaps we shud emphasise the SOCIAL SEC contribution made by us so that, they do not forget us at the last minute, since H1 issues will be followed up more religiously.
Should we send out emails to karnik and crowd ?
Outstanding efforts. Also, not sure if you all agree ? if we get the NASCOM email id for karnik, perhaps we shud emphasise the SOCIAL SEC contribution made by us so that, they do not forget us at the last minute, since H1 issues will be followed up more religiously.
Should we send out emails to karnik and crowd ?
more...
jchan
04-27 05:53 PM
I read through the bill but don't quite understand...if I am working for a client on H1B, will I need to stop working as soon as this bill takes effect? or it only applies to newly applied H1B's (or extension/transfer)?
induabhay
01-13 08:49 PM
Folks
Is there any person on IB who can express concern vividly and also suggest solutions eloquently? Also is there anybody else with media contacts who can get this person some prime time explosure? What do you guys think about the idea? IB has been doing a good job of pushing our case with the legislature. Should we now look at puhsing the case with media?
Is there any person on IB who can express concern vividly and also suggest solutions eloquently? Also is there anybody else with media contacts who can get this person some prime time explosure? What do you guys think about the idea? IB has been doing a good job of pushing our case with the legislature. Should we now look at puhsing the case with media?
more...
skdskd
01-30 05:12 PM
Voted....It's Question 22 Now
2010 love you quotes for him. i
sobers
02-22 12:31 PM
Whether it is logical or not, whether we like it or not, the issues of illegal and legal immigration are intrinsically tied up (to the disadvantage of skilled workers, of course:-()
Anyhow, this appeared in today's Wall Street Journal...it may forbode a taste of things to come..or not come..this one focusses on the DREAM Act which is geared to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants..
---------------
Should Illegal Immigrants Get Tuition Help?
States' Varying Stances on College-Education Benefit Illustrate Congress's Overhaul Task
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
February 22, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- An emotional state-level dispute over college tuition shows how tough it will be for Congress to overhaul immigration laws and extend citizenship benefits to the country's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.
Four years ago, California passed a law granting in-state tuition to students who were in the U.S. illegally but had graduated from a California high school. Eight other states followed, allowing illegal immigrants to attend public colleges for in-state student fees -- usually less than half what out-of-state students pay.
DiAnna Schimek, a Democrat who heads the Nebraska Senate's education committee, says she has pushed for an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants as a matter of compassion and economic calculation. "These children didn't bring themselves" but were brought by their parents, she says. "It's only a good investment on our part to make certain they are productive citizens."
But attitudes have been hardening as an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants flood in yearly. "That's an alarm to the people here ... it's a drain on the economy," says Rep. Glenn Donnelson, a Utah Republican who heads an education committee in his state.
So while some legislators want to extend tuition benefits to illegal immigrants in their states, others are calling for laws to deny the benefit -- or take it back.
Lawmakers in Utah, Kansas and New Mexico -- which passed in-state tuition benefits only two or three years ago -- now are waging uphill fights to repeal them. Massachusetts legislators last month rejected a bill to offer in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.
Six states are considering measures that would deny in-state tuition, tuition waivers or state scholarships to illegal immigrants. In New York, which offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and Virginia, which recently passed a law offering benefits to some, bills have been introduced to bar illegal immigrants from attending public colleges.
Meanwhile, lawsuits challenging in-state tuition for illegal immigrants have been filed in California and in Kansas. "There's something wrong with giving a benefit to an illegal that we don't even give to citizens of other states," says state Rep. Becky Hutchins, a Kansas Republican leading a repeal effort there.
The tuition laws generally require illegal immigrants to have attended a local high school for three years, to have graduated or earned a high-school equivalency and to sign an affidavit promising to legalize their immigration status as soon as they are eligible.
Promoters expect few students to actually take up the benefit. Dropout rates are high and academic scores generally are low among Hispanics, who account for the majority of illegal aliens. And even in-state tuition, which averages about $5,500 this year, may be out of reach for children whose parents typically hold minimum-wage jobs.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri law professor who brought a federal suit against the Kansas program, says 221 illegal immigrants are enrolled in Kansas public colleges this year, and that even when the benefit becomes widely known, the number probably wouldn't exceed 2,700.
Even so, in-state tuition laws have become flashpoint among some voters who feel they haven't any other way to protest illegal immigration. Federal laws allow illegal immigrants to use emergency medical services, and a 1982 Supreme Court decision entitles their children to public education through high school.
Rod Adair, a New Mexico state senator who introduced unsuccessful legislation to repeal his state's immigrant-tuition benefit, says he was acting "in response to my constituents. They're frustrated."
Prof. Kobach's suit contends Kansas's in-state tuition benefit violates a federal law that prohibits states from giving any benefit to an illegal alien that they don't also extend to all U.S. citizens.
Among his plaintiffs, Heidi Hydeman, an Iowa native, says she was charged out-of-state tuition by the University of Kansas, though she lived in Kansas for six years and paid Kansas income tax for three years while attending the school. "I thought it was unfair," says Ms. Hydeman.
Mr. Donnelson, the Utah legislator, says Utah would face a $34 million bill if a similar suit were filed there, and current out-of-state students were refunded the difference between in-state tuition and the nonresident tuition they pay.
But legislators' doubts go beyond that. Although illegal immigrants who get the tuition benefit pledge to legalize their status, there is almost no way they can do that under current laws. And even with a college degree, there is almost no way for illegal immigrants to legally get a job.
For years, congressional supporters have promoted a measure, called the Dream Act, that would clear up those problems. States would be allowed to offer in-state tuition to illegal-immigrant students who, in turn, could become citizens.
In 2003, almost half the Senate cosponsored the Dream Act. But the Dream Act's prospects have faded, and this year its pivotal supporter, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, withdrew as a sponsor. "Realistically, the Dream Act will not pass" and should be included in an overhaul of immigration laws, he said.
But the tensions fueling opposition to in-state tuition laws are the same ones making it hard for Congress to pass immigration overhaul. A coalition of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, immigrant-rights groups and labor unions wants new federal laws that would let illegal immigrants eventually become citizens.
They are being stymied, however, by social conservatives, who worry about being culturally overwhelmed by immigrants, and by Republican national-security hawks, who are demanding that Washington cut off illegal immigration first. The tension prevented the U.S. House from taking up immigration overhaul last year, and is complicating the Senate's efforts to pass it this year.
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
Anyhow, this appeared in today's Wall Street Journal...it may forbode a taste of things to come..or not come..this one focusses on the DREAM Act which is geared to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants..
---------------
Should Illegal Immigrants Get Tuition Help?
States' Varying Stances on College-Education Benefit Illustrate Congress's Overhaul Task
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
February 22, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- An emotional state-level dispute over college tuition shows how tough it will be for Congress to overhaul immigration laws and extend citizenship benefits to the country's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.
Four years ago, California passed a law granting in-state tuition to students who were in the U.S. illegally but had graduated from a California high school. Eight other states followed, allowing illegal immigrants to attend public colleges for in-state student fees -- usually less than half what out-of-state students pay.
DiAnna Schimek, a Democrat who heads the Nebraska Senate's education committee, says she has pushed for an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants as a matter of compassion and economic calculation. "These children didn't bring themselves" but were brought by their parents, she says. "It's only a good investment on our part to make certain they are productive citizens."
But attitudes have been hardening as an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants flood in yearly. "That's an alarm to the people here ... it's a drain on the economy," says Rep. Glenn Donnelson, a Utah Republican who heads an education committee in his state.
So while some legislators want to extend tuition benefits to illegal immigrants in their states, others are calling for laws to deny the benefit -- or take it back.
Lawmakers in Utah, Kansas and New Mexico -- which passed in-state tuition benefits only two or three years ago -- now are waging uphill fights to repeal them. Massachusetts legislators last month rejected a bill to offer in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.
Six states are considering measures that would deny in-state tuition, tuition waivers or state scholarships to illegal immigrants. In New York, which offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and Virginia, which recently passed a law offering benefits to some, bills have been introduced to bar illegal immigrants from attending public colleges.
Meanwhile, lawsuits challenging in-state tuition for illegal immigrants have been filed in California and in Kansas. "There's something wrong with giving a benefit to an illegal that we don't even give to citizens of other states," says state Rep. Becky Hutchins, a Kansas Republican leading a repeal effort there.
The tuition laws generally require illegal immigrants to have attended a local high school for three years, to have graduated or earned a high-school equivalency and to sign an affidavit promising to legalize their immigration status as soon as they are eligible.
Promoters expect few students to actually take up the benefit. Dropout rates are high and academic scores generally are low among Hispanics, who account for the majority of illegal aliens. And even in-state tuition, which averages about $5,500 this year, may be out of reach for children whose parents typically hold minimum-wage jobs.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri law professor who brought a federal suit against the Kansas program, says 221 illegal immigrants are enrolled in Kansas public colleges this year, and that even when the benefit becomes widely known, the number probably wouldn't exceed 2,700.
Even so, in-state tuition laws have become flashpoint among some voters who feel they haven't any other way to protest illegal immigration. Federal laws allow illegal immigrants to use emergency medical services, and a 1982 Supreme Court decision entitles their children to public education through high school.
Rod Adair, a New Mexico state senator who introduced unsuccessful legislation to repeal his state's immigrant-tuition benefit, says he was acting "in response to my constituents. They're frustrated."
Prof. Kobach's suit contends Kansas's in-state tuition benefit violates a federal law that prohibits states from giving any benefit to an illegal alien that they don't also extend to all U.S. citizens.
Among his plaintiffs, Heidi Hydeman, an Iowa native, says she was charged out-of-state tuition by the University of Kansas, though she lived in Kansas for six years and paid Kansas income tax for three years while attending the school. "I thought it was unfair," says Ms. Hydeman.
Mr. Donnelson, the Utah legislator, says Utah would face a $34 million bill if a similar suit were filed there, and current out-of-state students were refunded the difference between in-state tuition and the nonresident tuition they pay.
But legislators' doubts go beyond that. Although illegal immigrants who get the tuition benefit pledge to legalize their status, there is almost no way they can do that under current laws. And even with a college degree, there is almost no way for illegal immigrants to legally get a job.
For years, congressional supporters have promoted a measure, called the Dream Act, that would clear up those problems. States would be allowed to offer in-state tuition to illegal-immigrant students who, in turn, could become citizens.
In 2003, almost half the Senate cosponsored the Dream Act. But the Dream Act's prospects have faded, and this year its pivotal supporter, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, withdrew as a sponsor. "Realistically, the Dream Act will not pass" and should be included in an overhaul of immigration laws, he said.
But the tensions fueling opposition to in-state tuition laws are the same ones making it hard for Congress to pass immigration overhaul. A coalition of pro-business Republicans, Democrats, immigrant-rights groups and labor unions wants new federal laws that would let illegal immigrants eventually become citizens.
They are being stymied, however, by social conservatives, who worry about being culturally overwhelmed by immigrants, and by Republican national-security hawks, who are demanding that Washington cut off illegal immigration first. The tension prevented the U.S. House from taking up immigration overhaul last year, and is complicating the Senate's efforts to pass it this year.
Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com
more...
jaihind
01-18 09:28 PM
We have to fight discrimination in any form. While we are for enforcement of law - arbitrary interpretation has to be fought.
hair cute quotes about smiles. love
mirage
08-25 12:31 PM
There is Buy Rate and a Sell Rate. The Buy rate is about 50-60 Cents less than the Sell rate. You get the buy rate when you send money...
I have sent money using icicibank's M2I service . Usually they take 5 working days to remit the money(atleast 8 days to transfer). I made four transactions last week(mon, tue, wed, thu) and they already remitted the money using low conversion rate.
It just took less than three days to remit the money this time. Bank deliberately did this just to steal money from me. I have lost more than 35 paise per dollar and it comes close to Rs 10,000. This is ridiculous and its a big robbery.
How do i get my money back? How do i make a compliant about this bank? They have no one to assist me over the phone.
What to do now?. Rs 10,000 may look too small for us. But how can we let banks to act like a criminals.
Any help/suggestion/comment?
I have sent money using icicibank's M2I service . Usually they take 5 working days to remit the money(atleast 8 days to transfer). I made four transactions last week(mon, tue, wed, thu) and they already remitted the money using low conversion rate.
It just took less than three days to remit the money this time. Bank deliberately did this just to steal money from me. I have lost more than 35 paise per dollar and it comes close to Rs 10,000. This is ridiculous and its a big robbery.
How do i get my money back? How do i make a compliant about this bank? They have no one to assist me over the phone.
What to do now?. Rs 10,000 may look too small for us. But how can we let banks to act like a criminals.
Any help/suggestion/comment?
more...
willigetagc
08-14 09:33 AM
Yes, that is right, I said “plight of EB2-India”.
I am a passive observer of these forums. But some of the ridiculous notions floating around here have motivated me to vent. First and foremost, the law as written is highly favorable to people in EB3 categories, even from India. Here is how...
Take my example (and there are thousands like myself)....came to the US 8 years ago, spent 5 years working day and night to earn a PhD on a low (barely sustainable) stipend, got FIRST job saw decent money for the first time 6 years after I came.
Now, compare this to a person working an EB3-job for the last 8 years. Not only does this person do a real job that hopefully provides a respectable income but this person also has the option of moving to EB2 after 5 years of experience. So, at the end of the day in 2008; this person comes out ahead of me in terms of money, in terms of priority date (if ported) and most likely in terms of GC.
There are complaints all over the forum which have the stink of pretentiousness such as “oh..i am a poor EB3 waiting for n number of years” etc etc. What you guys seem to forget is that YOU are NOT an EB3, it is your JOB that is EB3. You have all the opportunities that were/are available to a person who sweated it out in the university system here to gain more qualifications and get an EB2 job. You CHOSE not to. The general discussion seems to center around cribbing about the US immigration system (Immigration by the way is a privilege defined by laws, not a birthright) and then blaming the EB2 crowd when they finally see the system implement the law as intended in the first place (horizontal spillover rules).
All these posts that refer to “my career is over because my gc is delayed” are nothing but a pathetic excuse. Law of supply and demand....if you have a skillset that is valuable, you will be fine with or without GC anywhere in the world. It takes a bunch of documents to remain here legally, all you need is a passport to go back if the system here seems so bad.
For all the attacks that are bound to happen, here is the fodder.....this is probably my first and last post, I haven’t contributed a dime to IV, will work here as long as I like it and if not, India is a great country and provides enough opportunities for any skillset !!
most ridiculous argument and surprising because it is coming from a Phd. Surely, you must have defended your doctoral thesis, or did'nt you have one ? :p
The people who go for Phds should know that they are sacrificing short-term future cash flows in exchange for a far superior long-term cash flows. The others "EB3" go for a more milder but increasing series of future cash flows.
To each his own!!! But when people say that "my career is over because my gc is delayed" UNDERSTAND that they are venting their frustration. It does not mean that their career is really over.
And, like you, they will also work here as long as they like it and if not, go back...
I am a passive observer of these forums. But some of the ridiculous notions floating around here have motivated me to vent. First and foremost, the law as written is highly favorable to people in EB3 categories, even from India. Here is how...
Take my example (and there are thousands like myself)....came to the US 8 years ago, spent 5 years working day and night to earn a PhD on a low (barely sustainable) stipend, got FIRST job saw decent money for the first time 6 years after I came.
Now, compare this to a person working an EB3-job for the last 8 years. Not only does this person do a real job that hopefully provides a respectable income but this person also has the option of moving to EB2 after 5 years of experience. So, at the end of the day in 2008; this person comes out ahead of me in terms of money, in terms of priority date (if ported) and most likely in terms of GC.
There are complaints all over the forum which have the stink of pretentiousness such as “oh..i am a poor EB3 waiting for n number of years” etc etc. What you guys seem to forget is that YOU are NOT an EB3, it is your JOB that is EB3. You have all the opportunities that were/are available to a person who sweated it out in the university system here to gain more qualifications and get an EB2 job. You CHOSE not to. The general discussion seems to center around cribbing about the US immigration system (Immigration by the way is a privilege defined by laws, not a birthright) and then blaming the EB2 crowd when they finally see the system implement the law as intended in the first place (horizontal spillover rules).
All these posts that refer to “my career is over because my gc is delayed” are nothing but a pathetic excuse. Law of supply and demand....if you have a skillset that is valuable, you will be fine with or without GC anywhere in the world. It takes a bunch of documents to remain here legally, all you need is a passport to go back if the system here seems so bad.
For all the attacks that are bound to happen, here is the fodder.....this is probably my first and last post, I haven’t contributed a dime to IV, will work here as long as I like it and if not, India is a great country and provides enough opportunities for any skillset !!
most ridiculous argument and surprising because it is coming from a Phd. Surely, you must have defended your doctoral thesis, or did'nt you have one ? :p
The people who go for Phds should know that they are sacrificing short-term future cash flows in exchange for a far superior long-term cash flows. The others "EB3" go for a more milder but increasing series of future cash flows.
To each his own!!! But when people say that "my career is over because my gc is delayed" UNDERSTAND that they are venting their frustration. It does not mean that their career is really over.
And, like you, they will also work here as long as they like it and if not, go back...
hot hairstyles quotes on smile and
green_card
11-11 08:41 AM
Thank you for adding some rationality to the discussion.
I-485 is mostly about the eligibility of the individual (like medical, illegal presence, fraud etc.) and so getting rejected at I-485 stage is not that common (especially after the approval of the underlying immigration petition). And if it does get rejected, more often than not, the individual may never be eligible for permanent residence due to the same reason. So usefulness of H1-B as back-up is of very limited narure.
I-485 is mostly about the eligibility of the individual (like medical, illegal presence, fraud etc.) and so getting rejected at I-485 stage is not that common (especially after the approval of the underlying immigration petition). And if it does get rejected, more often than not, the individual may never be eligible for permanent residence due to the same reason. So usefulness of H1-B as back-up is of very limited narure.
more...
house cute quotes about smiles. cute
alisa
02-11 05:35 PM
Could you please at the same time also ask EB-3 ROW to quit this organization?
I totally agree with you. I think we should call DOS/USCIS to complain about this. I will ask as many as EB2s to do the same.
I totally agree with you. I think we should call DOS/USCIS to complain about this. I will ask as many as EB2s to do the same.
tattoo cute quotes about smiles
arrarrgee
07-17 12:25 PM
As someone mentioned on the other popst..DREAM ACT is for the children of illegal immigrants...not for the legal ones...
Yeah, we have to focus on long term relief. Getting AP and EAD is not a long term solution. I was hoping 'capturing unused numbers' or something better would happen with this July fiasco fix, does not seem to be happening now.
Hopefully this DREAM act will trigger more amendments like 'no limits on STEM EB visas' to get into pending bills...
Yeah, we have to focus on long term relief. Getting AP and EAD is not a long term solution. I was hoping 'capturing unused numbers' or something better would happen with this July fiasco fix, does not seem to be happening now.
Hopefully this DREAM act will trigger more amendments like 'no limits on STEM EB visas' to get into pending bills...
more...
pictures quotes about smiles and
floridasun
01-27 10:30 AM
First of all note that the original post was alomst year and a half old so dont go by the ideas there now :D
In commodity markets you trade futures and spot. Spot means immidate delivery of the under lying commodity. In futures you pay today for delivery at a future date. So typically the price of the future will be the price of spot + the storage charge (simple calculation to give you an idea considering no premiums). As the day of delivery approaches the price will pull to spot price. For example if west texas intermediate (WTI) crude is $92 spot price the 3 month future will be $100. (92+8 for storage). Considering that the spot price does not change at all, in three months time the price of the oil you will now be purchasing will be $92, but you paid $100 for it. This is backwardation. This is usually how markets are most of the time.
Now if in 3 months the price of WTI is trading at $110, you will own oil you paid $100 for and now can turn around and sell for $110. This is contango.
When you buy a commodity ETF, they dont take actual delivery of the product, they roll their contarcts. So they will hold a 3 month contarct and when the third month approaches they sell the contarct and get another 3 month contaract. If market is in backwardation then they will always be buying high and selling low. If market is in contango they will make money but as soon as it switches back to backwardation they will ride down the slide and loose all the money they made. So I dont think ETF's are agood way of making money in commodities passively. You can actively manage the ETF portfolio and make money using options and hedges and leveraged ETF's. But buy and hold, I suggest go and invest with a CTA who will be trading rule based to negate the effects of contango and backwardation.
Hope this is simple enough:)
Thanks smisachu. that was informative. FYI right now I am double shorting crude oil - with everyone calling higher crude oil prices in future, I may be in for a loss here... but willing to hold till I get break even :-)
In commodity markets you trade futures and spot. Spot means immidate delivery of the under lying commodity. In futures you pay today for delivery at a future date. So typically the price of the future will be the price of spot + the storage charge (simple calculation to give you an idea considering no premiums). As the day of delivery approaches the price will pull to spot price. For example if west texas intermediate (WTI) crude is $92 spot price the 3 month future will be $100. (92+8 for storage). Considering that the spot price does not change at all, in three months time the price of the oil you will now be purchasing will be $92, but you paid $100 for it. This is backwardation. This is usually how markets are most of the time.
Now if in 3 months the price of WTI is trading at $110, you will own oil you paid $100 for and now can turn around and sell for $110. This is contango.
When you buy a commodity ETF, they dont take actual delivery of the product, they roll their contarcts. So they will hold a 3 month contarct and when the third month approaches they sell the contarct and get another 3 month contaract. If market is in backwardation then they will always be buying high and selling low. If market is in contango they will make money but as soon as it switches back to backwardation they will ride down the slide and loose all the money they made. So I dont think ETF's are agood way of making money in commodities passively. You can actively manage the ETF portfolio and make money using options and hedges and leveraged ETF's. But buy and hold, I suggest go and invest with a CTA who will be trading rule based to negate the effects of contango and backwardation.
Hope this is simple enough:)
Thanks smisachu. that was informative. FYI right now I am double shorting crude oil - with everyone calling higher crude oil prices in future, I may be in for a loss here... but willing to hold till I get break even :-)
dresses quotes about happiness and
ElectricGrandpa
06-12 03:03 AM
Either way, I don't have an iPod so I have no idea.. haha :)
... And besides, I don't really like how my "chipPod" skin looks anyway.
... And besides, I don't really like how my "chipPod" skin looks anyway.
more...
makeup love quotes quotes smile
rmscandy2006
07-15 09:28 AM
done
girlfriend nice quotes about smile.
forever_waiting
04-22 07:13 PM
Ok. But how does this apply to immigration?
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
Thanks for asking this. I found this: Civil Rights Division Home Page (http://www.justice.gov/crt/legalinfo/natorigin.php)
IMO, rather useful in our discussion, though not relating to the constitution. But if you insist, I might point you to the 14th amendment ...
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)
Read the "Equal protection clause". It mentions this case:
The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations
Do you agree that we can draw a direct parallel of this case to our case, where they are segregating visa numbers based on the country of origin?
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
Thanks for asking this. I found this: Civil Rights Division Home Page (http://www.justice.gov/crt/legalinfo/natorigin.php)
IMO, rather useful in our discussion, though not relating to the constitution. But if you insist, I might point you to the 14th amendment ...
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)
Read the "Equal protection clause". It mentions this case:
The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations
Do you agree that we can draw a direct parallel of this case to our case, where they are segregating visa numbers based on the country of origin?
hairstyles cute quotes about smiles
sam_hoosier
11-26 01:26 PM
I believe after this new fees, we might have to pay one more time for the renewal and after that we never have to pay for any renewals. So it will not be a factor any more.
Are you saying we will all get our green cards ? :D
Are you saying we will all get our green cards ? :D
acecupid
06-13 07:37 PM
Jesus! That looks sooo risky. Yes indeed my PD is May 06. Now the question is what if (I know a big IF), but what if, I apply for my 485 (hoping that my 485 will be on EAD/AP for a long time) BUT my 485 gets approved rather quickly and I am not able to marry before that happens -- do I have *any* way to tackle that issue? Or would it then mean that my wife cannot come in US for n number of years after marriage?!
Jesus Christ! Does anything happen without a twist?! :)
Lol... looks like then you have to marry an american gori/gora or ABCD. :D Hopefully you will find a partner in india and get married before 485 gets approved
Jesus Christ! Does anything happen without a twist?! :)
Lol... looks like then you have to marry an american gori/gora or ABCD. :D Hopefully you will find a partner in india and get married before 485 gets approved
krishnam70
07-18 02:44 PM
Recapturing lost numbers is not a permanent solution. Per country limit 7% is ridiculous. We need to make sure we are not discriminated against by the per country limit. Its not my fault that someone from Europe doesnt want to come here and not so many from Africa or south america qualify for the EB visas.
posts like this project your cheap thinking ! this forum is not just for one ethnic group or class it is here to help people from all nations and backgrounds for the common purpose of doing justice to legal immigrants.
posts like this project your cheap thinking ! this forum is not just for one ethnic group or class it is here to help people from all nations and backgrounds for the common purpose of doing justice to legal immigrants.
No comments:
Post a Comment