Also, country-based quotas are based on country of birth not residence, or citizenship.
I was not eligible for the lottery because I was born in Canada, and nations who provide more than a certain number of immigrants in the previous five years are excluded. Because my parents were refugee immigrants to Canada, later citizens, I had, at one point, hoped that I was born while they were not yet citizens, and could claim Czech citizenship for purposes of lottery- or DV-based immigration under a really arcane exception to the nation of birth rule, but, alas, that was not to be.
I got my green card in 1996 and can apply for U.S. citizenship in 2011.
O-1 is a non-immigrant visa, basically equivalent to the EB-1 immigrant visa, and extensible indefinitely. But, one can not become a citizen without becoming an immigrant first.
Not really. One should be classified in the most preferential category to begin with. Additional work experience will not let you move up a category. So, you should "fill any gaps" (like get that graduate degree) first, or at least while on a non-immigrant visa. You can't really go from EB-2 to EB-1.
H1B is a non-immigrant visa, good for three years, renewable for another three, and then year over year as long as a permanent residency adjustment of status petition has not yet been adjudicated.
To become a naturalized citizen, one must be a lawful permanent resident first, for five years. To become a lawful permanent resident, requires an immigrant visa, basically, a "Green Card". To get a Green Card, that is not based on family sponsorship, but employment sponsorship, one is placed into several prioritized categories:
EB-1: Persons of National Interest or Extraordinary Ability (Nobel prize winners, etc.);
EB-2: Persons with Advanced Degrees;
EB-3: Skilled Workers;
EB-4: Special Immigrants;
EB-5: Visa Investors ($1M and creating ten American jobs, or $500k and investing in a rural area paying 150% of the national wage).
I'm more interested what his immigration category was? Mine was EB-2 (Person with advanced degree: Master or Ph.D). I suspect his was EB-1 (Person of national interest).
Sure, but in an at will state they CAN fire him because someone with a moniker the same has his disparaged the company. At-will employment makes firing trivial. They can simply say, "We don't like you."
Trouble is if is is in an "at will" employment state, they have every right to fire him without cause anyway, so all he could do is soil their reputation as unreasonable... if his employment contract does not forbid him from making disparaging remarks. About the only thing they probably can't make him do is honor non-compete agreements if he is fired -- courts frown on that.
Like I say, You can't be fired for the color of your skin, but you can be fired for the color of your eyes.
Yes, but one thing leads to another, and it's easiest to avoid the whole mess.
Once one has kids, and the whole "reproduction imperative" has been gotten out of the way, the benefits just don't warrant the risks. I don't want to pay child support for 18-21 years if there's an "accident" (I already *have* kids to support), don't really support the idea of abortion, and know that a contract to abort in the event of contraceptive failure is unenforceable at law (as being against "public interest"). Further, one can be deemed a "legal father" if there's any hint you might have had any contact with a child, even if subsequent DNA testing proves otherwise. Vasectomy failure odds are anywhere from 1/300 to 1/2000, they can spontaneously reverse at any time, and can have nasty post-op consequences.
Women can avoid becoming parents if contraception fails, but men can't.
In such a legal climate, it makes no sense for a man to be sexually active if he is not willing to raise or at least financially support a child.
Only if you made the macaroni from scratch. Hits 3 and 9.
See, it not only has to be fancy and difficult, it has to sound fancy and difficult. "Mac & Cheese" doesn't. But, "Hand-crafted Pasta with Rare Cheese and bechamel" does.
It would roll off the tongue better in French, but French is too gay a language unless you can also pull off snootiness at Maitre d' levels. About the only exception if if you are planning a romantic dinner: it exhibits your "sensitive" side. Of course, if you go so far as to "do Italian", the only way to counter the general gayness is if the dish involves raw beef (carpaccio), or seafood you killed yourself (live lobster).
Simple fare that is manly is anything with beef, or better, wild game: consider "Steak and Eggs". That's "man food". (It's also an excuse to have a beer with breakfast without looking like a complete lush, but I digress.)
I have chosen a celibate life, but not because of any lack of confidence. I see no reason to partake in an activity that runs the risk, even with sterilization, of producing offspring I don't desire.
Well, as long as there was work to do which required greater physical strength of the average man as opposed to the average woman it made sense for men to do it, leaving women to do everything else.
When I was growing up, cooking was "womens' work" -- no self-respecting "man" would cook, certainly not when there was a woman around. Barbequing was not considered "cooking". Professional chefs (generally men) were appreciated for their output, but rarely seen performing their craft and therefore not subject to effeminate ridicule over it.
I cook. I like to cook... mostly because I like to eat and I'll be damned if the lack of a woman to cook for me means I'm condemned to starve or be at the mercy of what fast food I can afford to buy, But, still the questionable "manliness" (or not?) of cooking haunts me to this day, particularly if I produce something "dainty", like a desert. I therefore consider what kind of cooking might be worthy of the "manly" label, and have come up with the following:
1. Crude cooking. You know, barbecuing: meat, raw heat and flame, and an estimate of when it's done.
2. Extreme cooking. Searing a steak on a surface (cast iron pan at red heat), to the point where a drop of rendered fat will flare up. That super spicy chile, or curry.
3. Difficult cooking. A paper-thin omelet rolled around yummy ingredients is damn difficult to pull off. This ain't your moma's "set the eggs, shove on plate, fill, and flip one half over" omelet. Bonus points for flipping the omelet to evenly cook the other side. Practice with flapjacks.
4. Sauces. Hollandaise, Bearnaise, etc. Anything with eggs or butter that mustn't curdle. This is a subset of (4), above. The trouble is, to get it right, you have to coddle the food, and that looks, well, wimpy. It just has to taste soooo good, that people will forgive the wimpy coddling.
5. Expensive. If it has saffron, truffles, or even vanilla, where a screwup will cost much money. It's the financial risk that makes it manly,
6. Alcohol. And flame. I'm not talking about cooking with wine. That's soooo metrosexual. I'm talking cooking with booze and setting things on fire.
7. Deserts. This is tricky. The idea is to come off as the one person who can provide what everyone wants at the end of a meal by giving the impression he pulled off the impossible to make it. Think creme brulee, not "Dunkin Hines". Caramelize the sugar with a damn blow-torch, not a wimpy culinary one that the "girls" use.
8. Physical Effort. So, you wanna make a meringue. Better beat the sh*t out of those egg whites by hand and work up a sweat.
9. Improvisation. Related to (7). Oh no! You are out of butter! No problem, shove a cup of heavy cream in the mixer, whip till it breaks, and strain off the buttermilk. This only works if you can pull off that you averted a major crises with quick thinking.
10. Multitasking. Making more dishes at once to all be ready at the same time than seems possible. Last second special requests while the food is being prepared fall into this category as well.
That actually covers a lot of culinary territory, but do note that baking and simple pasta dishes just don't cut it.
Here, the dorms are for intakes until one is classified as to risk and predisposition to violence. So yeah, they are a crapshoot.
What pissed me off was that when I posted bail, they backed off at arraignment, never formally charging me, but not dropping the charges either, until I pled to "something".
Ah, you hit one nail on the head: "... accused of abuse or has a criminal record (sometimes just an arrest)."
This is enough for an RO to be issued by the family court. However, if criminal charges are not laid, there is no opportunity to establish one's innocence, and the mere accusation is enough to keep a parent from their children.
From your link - Women are victims of 85% of all cases of domestic violence. They don't dispute that number. They accept it and assert (with a complete absence of proof or even hinting that there exists any evidence at all) that men are victims of violence but they don't view that violence as a crime.
I guess you didn't follow the footnotes:
[17] Straus MA. The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In Arriaga XB and Oskamp S (eds.): Violence in Intimate Relationships. Sage Publishers, 1999. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS21.pdf
[18]Stets JE and Straus MA. Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In Straus MA and Gelles RJ (eds): Physical Violence in American Families, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990. Table 15.
As for not seeking custody in divorce: here in many cases (WA state), the income earner has to pay both attorneys, even if malfeasance is on the part of the counterparty. That makes a custody battle absurd: to pay for both attorneys.
The issue isn't custody, per se. In many cases, visitation for a working parent makes sense. The issue is (re)gaining it when there is clear evidence of abuse on the part of a mother -- in many cases the children will be put into foster care rather than returned to the father. The ninth circuit court has ruled that placement with closest relatives should happen first, but it doesn't, and often one does not have the financial resources to fight the legal battle.
Then, when you add Title IV funding, there is an financial incentive for the state to place a child first in foster care, and then adopted out.
Soooo... one inujustice does not count because of another one?
When I get the funds, I can send a copy of that book your way. I've been doing that to get the message out about corruption in the U.S. family court system. So far, thankfully, I have not seen much of it personally.
I strongly suggest you read "Taken Into Custody..." by Stephen Baskerville.
Where many of us think our experiences are outliers, the research he does suggests there is systemic anti-male, and anti-family discrimination in many court systems.
It is unacceptable that a parent is indefinitely deprived of access to their children on the basis of an allegation not proven at law.
No, my first statement was factually correct, as I've seen it happen. Once is enough.
I don't feel wronged. I find statutes plainly unconstitutional with few having the resources to challenge them on that basis. I am very fortunate to have not been caught in the trap of not being able to earn an acceptable income locally and deemed in contempt for not seeing my kids after accepting remote employment: I could afford to fly back every two weeks.
I refer to what courts can, and have done. Read Stephen Baskerville's "Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family." It is well cited and researched.
Support is ordered according to a state formula based on income. But, if the court believes that income is artificially low, based, perhaps on previous earning capability, it has the power to impute income.
Where people get into trouble is where they have previously paid on the basis of bonus as well as regular income, and bonuses are no longer forthcoming... or leaving a good job to be closer to their kids, and the job they accepted did not pay as well.
Also, often, individuals falling into dire straights do not have the means to petition the court for an adjustment (one does not need council to do this, but the i-dotting, and t-crossing, can make the process daunting).
My anger is pointed at the absurd statutes and silly "family" court where one can be deprived of one's children through no fault of one's own: an allegation of abuse is enough to be restrained, with no trial at hand because criminal charges are not laid. Fortunately, I have been lucky in this regard, but it can be a lot worse.
I know of one case where a mother abducted a daughter from her stay at home father in California, took the child to Illinois, claimed abuse without proof, and got VAWA to fund the case to terminate the father's parental rights -- despite a California court order for the child to be returned.
No, what happens is if you move, you don't exercise visitation, and you can lose that right. In extreme situations you can be held in contempt for not exercising it.
You aren't assessed support on what you earn, you are assessed support on what you can earn, as far as the court deems. And if that means moving half-way around the world, that's what you have to do... and still exercise your visitation rights at your own expense.
Been there, done that: lost a job in WA (at-will employment) because I was divorced, and that reflected badly on the "family values" of my employer, and got a job in California: about the same income after taxes, actually. Flew back and forth every two weeks and had to maintain a place in WA in order to see my kids.
I was VERY lucky that I was not ordered to pay support based on earning the same income in WA that I did in CA (higher cost of living in CA when I returned to WA, getting a job closer to the kids, and high state income tax made the after-tax income about the same).
Well, if you believe the courts, you have to not leave, AND not lose your job, or go to jail (when you can't pay support anymore)... if you are divorced from your ex. Is it such a stretch that leaving to earn income to support a family won't be construed as spousal and child abuse (wahhh! daddy left) if you are married?
A police officer can arrest you upon probable cause. He may briefly detain you under reasonable suspicion. Detention can include handcuffing, and frisking.
You have to remember that the officer seeks to neutralize any threat you may present, and once you are handcuffed, he can relax that you won't pull a weapon on him. Of course, this leaves you a a sitting duck if he wants to be an asshole and beat the crap out of you, but he could have blown your head off anyway, so might as well relax.
Now, once cuffed and frisked, and found "clean", you will generally be uncuffed but still detained until you are released or arrested. The police can only detain you upon reasonable suspicion (which is a very low standard) and only for the shortest duration to do their job.
Said probable cause has to be upheld by a judge within a short time, generally 24 hours. After that, you can be held under probable cause for a total of 72 hours and then either charged or released.
Slashdot Mirror
Good points.
Also, country-based quotas are based on country of birth not residence, or citizenship.
I was not eligible for the lottery because I was born in Canada, and nations who provide more than a certain number of immigrants in the previous five years are excluded. Because my parents were refugee immigrants to Canada, later citizens, I had, at one point, hoped that I was born while they were not yet citizens, and could claim Czech citizenship for purposes of lottery- or DV-based immigration under a really arcane exception to the nation of birth rule, but, alas, that was not to be.
I got my green card in 1996 and can apply for U.S. citizenship in 2011.
O-1 is a non-immigrant visa, basically equivalent to the EB-1 immigrant visa, and extensible indefinitely. But, one can not become a citizen without becoming an immigrant first.
Not really. One should be classified in the most preferential category to begin with. Additional work experience will not let you move up a category. So, you should "fill any gaps" (like get that graduate degree) first, or at least while on a non-immigrant visa. You can't really go from EB-2 to EB-1.
H1B is a non-immigrant visa, good for three years, renewable for another three, and then year over year as long as a permanent residency adjustment of status petition has not yet been adjudicated.
To become a naturalized citizen, one must be a lawful permanent resident first, for five years. To become a lawful permanent resident, requires an immigrant visa, basically, a "Green Card". To get a Green Card, that is not based on family sponsorship, but employment sponsorship, one is placed into several prioritized categories:
EB-1: Persons of National Interest or Extraordinary Ability (Nobel prize winners, etc.);
EB-2: Persons with Advanced Degrees;
EB-3: Skilled Workers;
EB-4: Special Immigrants;
EB-5: Visa Investors ($1M and creating ten American jobs, or $500k and investing in a rural area paying 150% of the national wage).
I'm more interested what his immigration category was? Mine was EB-2 (Person with advanced degree: Master or Ph.D). I suspect his was EB-1 (Person of national interest).
Sure, but in an at will state they CAN fire him because someone with a moniker the same has his disparaged the company. At-will employment makes firing trivial. They can simply say, "We don't like you."
Trouble is if is is in an "at will" employment state, they have every right to fire him without cause anyway, so all he could do is soil their reputation as unreasonable... if his employment contract does not forbid him from making disparaging remarks. About the only thing they probably can't make him do is honor non-compete agreements if he is fired -- courts frown on that.
Like I say, You can't be fired for the color of your skin, but you can be fired for the color of your eyes.
Yes, but one thing leads to another, and it's easiest to avoid the whole mess.
Once one has kids, and the whole "reproduction imperative" has been gotten out of the way, the benefits just don't warrant the risks. I don't want to pay child support for 18-21 years if there's an "accident" (I already *have* kids to support), don't really support the idea of abortion, and know that a contract to abort in the event of contraceptive failure is unenforceable at law (as being against "public interest"). Further, one can be deemed a "legal father" if there's any hint you might have had any contact with a child, even if subsequent DNA testing proves otherwise. Vasectomy failure odds are anywhere from 1/300 to 1/2000, they can spontaneously reverse at any time, and can have nasty post-op consequences.
Women can avoid becoming parents if contraception fails, but men can't.
In such a legal climate, it makes no sense for a man to be sexually active if he is not willing to raise or at least financially support a child.
Only if you made the macaroni from scratch. Hits 3 and 9.
See, it not only has to be fancy and difficult, it has to sound fancy and difficult. "Mac & Cheese" doesn't. But, "Hand-crafted Pasta with Rare Cheese and bechamel" does.
It would roll off the tongue better in French, but French is too gay a language unless you can also pull off snootiness at Maitre d' levels. About the only exception if if you are planning a romantic dinner: it exhibits your "sensitive" side. Of course, if you go so far as to "do Italian", the only way to counter the general gayness is if the dish involves raw beef (carpaccio), or seafood you killed yourself (live lobster).
Simple fare that is manly is anything with beef, or better, wild game: consider "Steak and Eggs". That's "man food". (It's also an excuse to have a beer with breakfast without looking like a complete lush, but I digress.)
I have chosen a celibate life, but not because of any lack of confidence. I see no reason to partake in an activity that runs the risk, even with sterilization, of producing offspring I don't desire.
As for the post, it was intended as a joke.
Well, as long as there was work to do which required greater physical strength of the average man as opposed to the average woman it made sense for men to do it, leaving women to do everything else.
Oh, and on the "quiche" thing: Quiche is not food!.
When I was growing up, cooking was "womens' work" -- no self-respecting "man" would cook, certainly not when there was a woman around. Barbequing was not considered "cooking". Professional chefs (generally men) were appreciated for their output, but rarely seen performing their craft and therefore not subject to effeminate ridicule over it.
I cook. I like to cook... mostly because I like to eat and I'll be damned if the lack of a woman to cook for me means I'm condemned to starve or be at the mercy of what fast food I can afford to buy, But, still the questionable "manliness" (or not?) of cooking haunts me to this day, particularly if I produce something "dainty", like a desert. I therefore consider what kind of cooking might be worthy of the "manly" label, and have come up with the following:
1. Crude cooking. You know, barbecuing: meat, raw heat and flame, and an estimate of when it's done.
2. Extreme cooking. Searing a steak on a surface (cast iron pan at red heat), to the point where a drop of rendered fat will flare up. That super spicy chile, or curry.
3. Difficult cooking. A paper-thin omelet rolled around yummy ingredients is damn difficult to pull off. This ain't your moma's "set the eggs, shove on plate, fill, and flip one half over" omelet. Bonus points for flipping the omelet to evenly cook the other side. Practice with flapjacks.
4. Sauces. Hollandaise, Bearnaise, etc. Anything with eggs or butter that mustn't curdle. This is a subset of (4), above. The trouble is, to get it right, you have to coddle the food, and that looks, well, wimpy. It just has to taste soooo good, that people will forgive the wimpy coddling.
5. Expensive. If it has saffron, truffles, or even vanilla, where a screwup will cost much money. It's the financial risk that makes it manly,
6. Alcohol. And flame. I'm not talking about cooking with wine. That's soooo metrosexual. I'm talking cooking with booze and setting things on fire.
7. Deserts. This is tricky. The idea is to come off as the one person who can provide what everyone wants at the end of a meal by giving the impression he pulled off the impossible to make it. Think creme brulee, not "Dunkin Hines". Caramelize the sugar with a damn blow-torch, not a wimpy culinary one that the "girls" use.
8. Physical Effort. So, you wanna make a meringue. Better beat the sh*t out of those egg whites by hand and work up a sweat.
9. Improvisation. Related to (7). Oh no! You are out of butter! No problem, shove a cup of heavy cream in the mixer, whip till it breaks, and strain off the buttermilk. This only works if you can pull off that you averted a major crises with quick thinking.
10. Multitasking. Making more dishes at once to all be ready at the same time than seems possible. Last second special requests while the food is being prepared fall into this category as well.
That actually covers a lot of culinary territory, but do note that baking and simple pasta dishes just don't cut it.
Here, the dorms are for intakes until one is classified as to risk and predisposition to violence. So yeah, they are a crapshoot.
What pissed me off was that when I posted bail, they backed off at arraignment, never formally charging me, but not dropping the charges either, until I pled to "something".
... often far safer than "open time" in the quad, and yes, I write from experience.
Ah, you hit one nail on the head: "... accused of abuse or has a criminal record (sometimes just an arrest)."
This is enough for an RO to be issued by the family court. However, if criminal charges are not laid, there is no opportunity to establish one's innocence, and the mere accusation is enough to keep a parent from their children.
From your link - Women are victims of 85% of all cases of domestic violence. They don't dispute that number. They accept it and assert (with a complete absence of proof or even hinting that there exists any evidence at all) that men are victims of violence but they don't view that violence as a crime.
I guess you didn't follow the footnotes:
[17] Straus MA. The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical,
and sociology of science analysis. In Arriaga XB and Oskamp S (eds.): Violence in Intimate
Relationships. Sage Publishers, 1999. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS21.pdf
[18]Stets JE and Straus MA. Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical
and psychological consequences. In Straus MA and Gelles RJ (eds): Physical Violence in
American Families, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990. Table 15.
As for not seeking custody in divorce: here in many cases (WA state), the income earner has to pay both attorneys, even if malfeasance is on the part of the counterparty. That makes a custody battle absurd: to pay for both attorneys.
The issue isn't custody, per se. In many cases, visitation for a working parent makes sense. The issue is (re)gaining it when there is clear evidence of abuse on the part of a mother -- in many cases the children will be put into foster care rather than returned to the father. The ninth circuit court has ruled that placement with closest relatives should happen first, but it doesn't, and often one does not have the financial resources to fight the legal battle.
Then, when you add Title IV funding, there is an financial incentive for the state to place a child first in foster care, and then adopted out.
Soooo... one inujustice does not count because of another one?
When I get the funds, I can send a copy of that book your way. I've been doing that to get the message out about corruption in the U.S. family court system. So far, thankfully, I have not seen much of it personally.
I strongly suggest you read "Taken Into Custody..." by Stephen Baskerville.
Where many of us think our experiences are outliers, the research he does suggests there is systemic anti-male, and anti-family discrimination in many court systems.
It is unacceptable that a parent is indefinitely deprived of access to their children on the basis of an allegation not proven at law.
Also, men do not abuse women more than the reverse. That is misandrist propaganda.
No, my first statement was factually correct, as I've seen it happen. Once is enough.
I don't feel wronged. I find statutes plainly unconstitutional with few having the resources to challenge them on that basis. I am very fortunate to have not been caught in the trap of not being able to earn an acceptable income locally and deemed in contempt for not seeing my kids after accepting remote employment: I could afford to fly back every two weeks.
I refer to what courts can, and have done. Read Stephen Baskerville's "Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family." It is well cited and researched.
Support is ordered according to a state formula based on income. But, if the court believes that income is artificially low, based, perhaps on previous earning capability, it has the power to impute income.
Where people get into trouble is where they have previously paid on the basis of bonus as well as regular income, and bonuses are no longer forthcoming... or leaving a good job to be closer to their kids, and the job they accepted did not pay as well.
Also, often, individuals falling into dire straights do not have the means to petition the court for an adjustment (one does not need council to do this, but the i-dotting, and t-crossing, can make the process daunting).
My anger is pointed at the absurd statutes and silly "family" court where one can be deprived of one's children through no fault of one's own: an allegation of abuse is enough to be restrained, with no trial at hand because criminal charges are not laid. Fortunately, I have been lucky in this regard, but it can be a lot worse.
I know of one case where a mother abducted a daughter from her stay at home father in California, took the child to Illinois, claimed abuse without proof, and got VAWA to fund the case to terminate the father's parental rights -- despite a California court order for the child to be returned.
No, what happens is if you move, you don't exercise visitation, and you can lose that right. In extreme situations you can be held in contempt for not exercising it.
You aren't assessed support on what you earn, you are assessed support on what you can earn, as far as the court deems. And if that means moving half-way around the world, that's what you have to do... and still exercise your visitation rights at your own expense.
Been there, done that: lost a job in WA (at-will employment) because I was divorced, and that reflected badly on the "family values" of my employer, and got a job in California: about the same income after taxes, actually. Flew back and forth every two weeks and had to maintain a place in WA in order to see my kids.
I was VERY lucky that I was not ordered to pay support based on earning the same income in WA that I did in CA (higher cost of living in CA when I returned to WA, getting a job closer to the kids, and high state income tax made the after-tax income about the same).
Well, if you believe the courts, you have to not leave, AND not lose your job, or go to jail (when you can't pay support anymore)... if you are divorced from your ex. Is it such a stretch that leaving to earn income to support a family won't be construed as spousal and child abuse (wahhh! daddy left) if you are married?
A police officer can arrest you upon probable cause. He may briefly detain you under reasonable suspicion. Detention can include handcuffing, and frisking.
You have to remember that the officer seeks to neutralize any threat you may present, and once you are handcuffed, he can relax that you won't pull a weapon on him. Of course, this leaves you a a sitting duck if he wants to be an asshole and beat the crap out of you, but he could have blown your head off anyway, so might as well relax.
Now, once cuffed and frisked, and found "clean", you will generally be uncuffed but still detained until you are released or arrested. The police can only detain you upon reasonable suspicion (which is a very low standard) and only for the shortest duration to do their job.
Said probable cause has to be upheld by a judge within a short time, generally 24 hours. After that, you can be held under probable cause for a total of 72 hours and then either charged or released.
All that said, I do not actually advocate violence, and nothing I write as hyperbole should be misinterpreted that I do.
I still think Kagan is a fucktard for her opinions on detention without trial, though.