x*7
2 楼
我建议请文笔好，且了解EB问题比较全面的ID主笔，去白宫网站请愿
其他大家给主笔人捐款1美元
文稿在这里公布大家修改，修改好了去白宫网站贴
其他大家给主笔人捐款1美元
文稿在这里公布大家修改，修改好了去白宫网站贴
c*y
3 楼
好
m*x
4 楼
good idea.
w*1
5 楼
表示支持！要不谁起草一下也行，这边帮忙看看。和给议员写信一样，最好是讨论好了
一个声音出去，这样力量大
一个声音出去，这样力量大
m*x
6 楼
建议在老赫的版本上修改
发信人: Helsinki (跑步然后蛋腚地桑拿), 信区: EB23_Policy_News_and_Rumors
标 题: 气死我了，一大早奥本给我写这么一封信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Aug 6 09:14:15 2013, 美东)
背景：我一直在吵着要剩余名额，这厮百般推搪，我抬出一个朋友的名字说准备通过她
寄信给第一夫人申诉不公，争取不通过立法机关进行行政修改。其实我即使申诉也没有
法律上的根据，只是告诉他我有渠道而已。这厮居然一大早（估计是一到办公室）就举
个粗陋的例子反驳我。我立刻推迟了一个team meeting跟他吵。
-----------------------------------
I can’t agree more with you. If the visa numbers are issued strictly in
the order in which they applied for status, we would be very happy.
However, double standards are hurting Chinese EB2.
In step 1, the spirit of U.S. immigration law is to promote diversity, hence
a Finnish or Irish with PD 2013 can receive green card right away, while
Chinese and Indians have to wait. Using your example, these Irish and
Finnish people are cutting lines in the rain.
But we would be very happy if you continue to promote diversity by
allocating the visa numbers by countries.
However, in step 2, the logic changed to allocating the spillovers by PD.
Now you can see Chinese EB2 is the single group that has been hurt twice by
the mechanism, the first time by country limit, the second time by PD.
While the Indians were hurt by country limit, they are more than compensated
by the spillovers.
Using your example, there are 10 Irish, 10 Finnish, 50 Chinese, 500 Indians
are buying movie tickets. In first step, each of these groups can buy
tickets only at their own windows. So Irish and Finnish get the ticket
right away while Chinese and Indians have to wait in long lines. After
Irish and Finnish are gone, you closed the Chinese window and ask the
Chinese to join the Indian team.
You don’t mean to hurt only the Chinese. You are doing a fair job by
observing the rules. But the rules are using two-step double standards to
hurt nobody but the Chinese.
Also, there is a fundamental difference between Indian applicants and other
people: be it Chinese, Irish, or Finnish, we come by our own individual
efforts, but the Indians come in a wholesale style thanks to the organized
business behaviors of ICC which the Congress is trying to curtail.
发信人: Helsinki (跑步然后蛋腚地桑拿), 信区: EB23_Policy_News_and_Rumors
标 题: 气死我了，一大早奥本给我写这么一封信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Aug 6 09:14:15 2013, 美东)
背景：我一直在吵着要剩余名额，这厮百般推搪，我抬出一个朋友的名字说准备通过她
寄信给第一夫人申诉不公，争取不通过立法机关进行行政修改。其实我即使申诉也没有
法律上的根据，只是告诉他我有渠道而已。这厮居然一大早（估计是一到办公室）就举
个粗陋的例子反驳我。我立刻推迟了一个team meeting跟他吵。
-----------------------------------
I can’t agree more with you. If the visa numbers are issued strictly in
the order in which they applied for status, we would be very happy.
However, double standards are hurting Chinese EB2.
In step 1, the spirit of U.S. immigration law is to promote diversity, hence
a Finnish or Irish with PD 2013 can receive green card right away, while
Chinese and Indians have to wait. Using your example, these Irish and
Finnish people are cutting lines in the rain.
But we would be very happy if you continue to promote diversity by
allocating the visa numbers by countries.
However, in step 2, the logic changed to allocating the spillovers by PD.
Now you can see Chinese EB2 is the single group that has been hurt twice by
the mechanism, the first time by country limit, the second time by PD.
While the Indians were hurt by country limit, they are more than compensated
by the spillovers.
Using your example, there are 10 Irish, 10 Finnish, 50 Chinese, 500 Indians
are buying movie tickets. In first step, each of these groups can buy
tickets only at their own windows. So Irish and Finnish get the ticket
right away while Chinese and Indians have to wait in long lines. After
Irish and Finnish are gone, you closed the Chinese window and ask the
Chinese to join the Indian team.
You don’t mean to hurt only the Chinese. You are doing a fair job by
observing the rules. But the rules are using two-step double standards to
hurt nobody but the Chinese.
Also, there is a fundamental difference between Indian applicants and other
people: be it Chinese, Irish, or Finnish, we come by our own individual
efforts, but the Indians come in a wholesale style thanks to the organized
business behaviors of ICC which the Congress is trying to curtail.
m*x
7 楼
还要加上ob在对待eb3上的暗箱操作
c*y
8 楼
是要讨伐一下美国政府对中国EB2的不公正待遇。EB2应该Current
中国EB3前进是应该的， EB3也还是太慢
中国EB3前进是应该的， EB3也还是太慢
n*0
9 楼
zhichi
will donate too
will donate too
r*r
10 楼
老赫真是有理有节有胆有识有能力，为EBC争取利益。我怎么能支持他，进一些微薄之
力？给NIU捐款？
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 建议在老赫的版本上修改
: 发信人: Helsinki (跑步然后蛋腚地桑拿), 信区: EB23_Policy_News_and_Rumors
: 标 题: 气死我了，一大早奥本给我写这么一封信
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Aug 6 09:14:15 2013, 美东)
: 背景：我一直在吵着要剩余名额，这厮百般推搪，我抬出一个朋友的名字说准备通过她
: 寄信给第一夫人申诉不公，争取不通过立法机关进行行政修改。其实我即使申诉也没有
: 法律上的根据，只是告诉他我有渠道而已。这厮居然一大早（估计是一到办公室）就举
: 个粗陋的例子反驳我。我立刻推迟了一个team meeting跟他吵。
: -----------------------------------
: I can’t agree more with you. If the visa numbers are issued strictly in
力？给NIU捐款？
【在 m**x 的大作中提到】
: 建议在老赫的版本上修改
: 发信人: Helsinki (跑步然后蛋腚地桑拿), 信区: EB23_Policy_News_and_Rumors
: 标 题: 气死我了，一大早奥本给我写这么一封信
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Aug 6 09:14:15 2013, 美东)
: 背景：我一直在吵着要剩余名额，这厮百般推搪，我抬出一个朋友的名字说准备通过她
: 寄信给第一夫人申诉不公，争取不通过立法机关进行行政修改。其实我即使申诉也没有
: 法律上的根据，只是告诉他我有渠道而已。这厮居然一大早（估计是一到办公室）就举
: 个粗陋的例子反驳我。我立刻推迟了一个team meeting跟他吵。
: -----------------------------------
: I can’t agree more with you. If the visa numbers are issued strictly in
m*a
11 楼
老贺乃牛人也
【在 r****r 的大作中提到】
: 老赫真是有理有节有胆有识有能力，为EBC争取利益。我怎么能支持他，进一些微薄之
: 力？给NIU捐款？
【在 r****r 的大作中提到】
: 老赫真是有理有节有胆有识有能力，为EBC争取利益。我怎么能支持他，进一些微薄之
: 力？给NIU捐款？
相关阅读
关于485递交的时间问题relink体检是等RFE再检，还是先检等RFE？如果下个月出来结果说七月排期倒退男子尾随姑娘将其推倒 脱鞋捏脚偷走袜子-这个人是谁？ (转载)问题来了，家人在国内，那就不能申请485了吧？[485-list] DS1028 for prior J1夫妻各自H1B,一方提交485将对双方工作有何影响总结一下5月报绿的EB2NIW 排期已到，还没有找到工作，怎么办婚姻证明材料月初和月末寄485有嘛不同啊？拿大包子问大家：下个月排期倒退的可能性和我应该改机票吗？NIW 485 的律师推荐今年4月提交的140，非PP，去年8月的PD，要加急么？大家交485的费用是公司出还是自己出？问一个填表的问题弱问一下去年eb2-eb3拿到EAD卡，现在eb2 current 是不是现在要relink?H1B审理期间可以交485吗？出生公证上有照片吗？485pending 180天内换工作 用EAD还是H1B？