nkavjs
10-31 10:01 AM
With a newborn at home, this was a crucial decision for me, if I used EAD (with same employer) I could work minimum hours like 10-20 hours a week. I just wanted to be sure that at the time of GC processing, my less hours worked shd not be taken as an objection.
Thanks again :)
Thanks again :)
wallpaper Season 5 Weeds Season 6
Blog Feeds
09-11 12:00 PM
A voice of reason in the GOP on immigration departs. He will be missed in this process. In the mean time, Florida's new Senator, George LeMieux, is certainly not sounding like a fighter for immigration reform. According to the Orlando Sentinel: LeMieux appears likely to steer clear of Martinez's controversial attempts to overhaul immigration law, which would include a path to citizenship for the undocumented. 'We need tosecure our borders,' LeMieux said. 'After we do that, we can figure what happens to people already here.'
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/martinez-bids-farewell-and-urges-senate-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/martinez-bids-farewell-and-urges-senate-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
Jaime
09-12 04:14 PM
The worrying news below talk about findings that the U.S. has lost influence abroad as a result of the Iraq war, thus encouraging detractors such as Russia and Iran...so, this begs the question: Is this really the time for the country to also encourage loss of influence at home, by promoting a massive and catastrophic Reverse Brain Drain? Ask most international students, they don't believe the U.S. is the future and thus they do not plan to remain here after their studies....if that is not "loss of influence at home" I don't know what is
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_re_eu/security_report
This is why we need to ALL GO TO WASHINGTON! AND TELL CONGRESS TO STOP THE REVERSE BRAIN DRAIN
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_re_eu/security_report
This is why we need to ALL GO TO WASHINGTON! AND TELL CONGRESS TO STOP THE REVERSE BRAIN DRAIN
2011 makeup Weeds Season 3 Promo
WhatsInaName
09-01 10:21 AM
My friend's company is India recently applied for his L1B visa. He is scheduled to go for stamping next week. But, another company has already premium-filed his H1B petition and is expected to hear back from the USCIS anytime now.
Here's the question: if he gets his L1B visa first, can he later on try and get his H1B visa and enter the country with the H1 visa? Second, if he goes for H1B stamping right after his L1B stamping, will it affect the visa officer's decision in issuing a H1 visa?
Last question: he has already spent 3 years in the US on a L1B visa. So, if he comes here on a H1B visa, will the 6-year term limit count his 3 yr. stay on L1 visa or will a new clock start when he enters on H1?
Please chime in if anyone has done this before or has any insight on this matter.
Here's the question: if he gets his L1B visa first, can he later on try and get his H1B visa and enter the country with the H1 visa? Second, if he goes for H1B stamping right after his L1B stamping, will it affect the visa officer's decision in issuing a H1 visa?
Last question: he has already spent 3 years in the US on a L1B visa. So, if he comes here on a H1B visa, will the 6-year term limit count his 3 yr. stay on L1 visa or will a new clock start when he enters on H1?
Please chime in if anyone has done this before or has any insight on this matter.
more...
gondalguru
07-08 05:19 PM
Hi
I filed my 485 on June 4th 2007 with NSC. It was transferred to TSC and received my Receipt notice. Now I am going to file my AP.
My question is where should I file my AP?. Do I need to file with NSC or TSC?.
Please someone respond.
Thanks in advance
TSC
I filed my 485 on June 4th 2007 with NSC. It was transferred to TSC and received my Receipt notice. Now I am going to file my AP.
My question is where should I file my AP?. Do I need to file with NSC or TSC?.
Please someone respond.
Thanks in advance
TSC
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
more...
purgan
10-28 04:07 PM
yes, i saw this article and posted a comment. It is already on anti-immigrant sites like Freerepublic and Alipac.
2010 weeds season 7 roya. weeds
roseball
07-11 12:57 PM
Do note that AILF does cover people who were eligible to file in July but did not file due to USCIS/DOS revised bulletin.....However, it is unknown at this time what the outcome of the lawsuit would be for July applicants vs eligible but non-applicants as the decision is at the discretion of the Judge.....
IMHO, its better to file and get rejected......
IMHO, its better to file and get rejected......
more...
smssharma25
12-06 09:06 PM
Hi,
I am trying to change my job from PM to technical lead. My labor was filed for computer systems manager. Will technical lead come under the same category & occupation as computer systems manager?. New employer agreed to give me similar job duties in EVL & I am getting 40% hike. Is it wise to use AC-21 here?.
sharma
I am trying to change my job from PM to technical lead. My labor was filed for computer systems manager. Will technical lead come under the same category & occupation as computer systems manager?. New employer agreed to give me similar job duties in EVL & I am getting 40% hike. Is it wise to use AC-21 here?.
sharma
hair Weeds Season 3 Danish
Dhundhun
07-21 02:33 AM
Polling tracker can provide better idea, how much time it is taking to get EAD form NSC.
This is link to Polling tracker for AP from NSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20362
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20363
This is link to Polling tracker for AP from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20364
This is link to Polling tracker for AP from NSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20362
This is link to Polling tracker for EAD from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20363
This is link to Polling tracker for AP from TSC: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20364
more...
lawyerfriends
07-04 03:06 PM
12 Million illegal immigrants X atleast 2000 USD lawyer fees for each illegal's paperwork = almost 25 Billion in lawyer fees
AILA's total membership = 10,000 lawyers (including non practising law faculty)
25 Billion dollars divided by less than 10K lawyers, each was going to walk away with a 2.5 million dollar bonanza
Now that it is clear that they will not turn into instant millionaires (believe me, most of them already are), they have suddenly become the EB community's stalwart best friend and are even filing a lawsuit for us because the thought of returning the 2000$ fees for filing 485 is killing them. They may even shed a tear at our sorry plight.
AILA's total membership = 10,000 lawyers (including non practising law faculty)
25 Billion dollars divided by less than 10K lawyers, each was going to walk away with a 2.5 million dollar bonanza
Now that it is clear that they will not turn into instant millionaires (believe me, most of them already are), they have suddenly become the EB community's stalwart best friend and are even filing a lawsuit for us because the thought of returning the 2000$ fees for filing 485 is killing them. They may even shed a tear at our sorry plight.
hot 2010 2011 Weeds Season 6
karen77
12-10 12:58 PM
hello! i overstayed my visa by several years, left , and was able to get a new tourist visa and enter the u.s.
after leaving the u.s, on return,i was denied enterance, removed and banned for 5 years. my boyfriend lives in u.s, he's a citizen. is a fiance visa helpful to allow me in until we get married? is there even a chance? or do we need to marry outside of the u.s in this case? thank you!
after leaving the u.s, on return,i was denied enterance, removed and banned for 5 years. my boyfriend lives in u.s, he's a citizen. is a fiance visa helpful to allow me in until we get married? is there even a chance? or do we need to marry outside of the u.s in this case? thank you!
more...
house pictures weeds season 6
Apollon
03-18 03:23 PM
Tried to post in another, old thread - no response for several days, so decided to create a new one.
I asked my employer to create sub-account for me at http://www.plc.doleta.gov so I could check my PERM case status without polling them. The employer got back to me and said "looked into the site and I couldn�t find the way to create user account to view your case only".
They dont mind making sub-account for me, same way they do for attorneys and paralegals, but they dont want me to see their other pending cases or any information, unrelated to my case. So, my question is: is there a way to create sub-account, which would allow seeing my own case only?
Thanks in advance.
I asked my employer to create sub-account for me at http://www.plc.doleta.gov so I could check my PERM case status without polling them. The employer got back to me and said "looked into the site and I couldn�t find the way to create user account to view your case only".
They dont mind making sub-account for me, same way they do for attorneys and paralegals, but they dont want me to see their other pending cases or any information, unrelated to my case. So, my question is: is there a way to create sub-account, which would allow seeing my own case only?
Thanks in advance.
tattoo 2011 Doctor Who Season 6
99mutd08
08-10 11:25 AM
Lol
more...
pictures #39;Weeds#39; Season 6
tinkugadu
10-26 09:28 PM
i did bit of a research and i found the answer myself.
http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/nivconsdist.html
The right hand box has a important message. Which states that a Indian citizen is Residing in US currently can apply for stamping in any Consulate. Delhi. mumbai, Chennai or kolkata
http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/nivconsdist.html
The right hand box has a important message. Which states that a Indian citizen is Residing in US currently can apply for stamping in any Consulate. Delhi. mumbai, Chennai or kolkata
dresses 6 weeds season 1 cover.
augustus
07-03 12:12 AM
you are right buddy. My husband was telling me the same thing today. If they can do what they did today, they are capable of pulling any tricks on us. I have also lost trust in this system. I am now more scared than ever for some reason.
I don't feel good about the whole thing that happened today.
I don't feel good about the whole thing that happened today.
more...
makeup The First Dexter Season 6
barath_india
02-07 02:19 PM
It depends upon your luck with AP. Because you never know when they will be approving your AP and in case it is lost in Mail (it happens to lot of people) and you need to re-apply with fees again. This is very tricky....... You may get it in few weeks or few months or never. Not to discourage you, it really how lucky you are. All the best. I always will file 3-4 months in advance.
girlfriend weeds season 7 poster. makeup Watch the Weeds Season
omsakthi
02-12 08:35 PM
Dear Attorneys, Some one could you please reply.
THanks,
omsakthi.
THanks,
omsakthi.
hairstyles Weeds Season 6 Returns Tonight
determined_indian
08-14 10:17 AM
Since H1 is for 6 years, you can extend for another year without filing I-140. You can apply for renewal within 180 days before expiry.
pendingGC
07-16 11:21 PM
Hello Attorney
I am on H4 visa now and when I was on F2 visa I have used medicaid and wic for prenatal care. It was used during my pregnancy only. I am never asked for that in my h4 visa inteviews. Since my husband is applying for CP for green card . Will it be a problem for me to go for CP ? Will consular office consider it a public charge and deny my GC ? Just in case if I get denial how to overcome that denial ? is there a standard process ? Will it affect my husband's GC ?
I am on H4 visa now and when I was on F2 visa I have used medicaid and wic for prenatal care. It was used during my pregnancy only. I am never asked for that in my h4 visa inteviews. Since my husband is applying for CP for green card . Will it be a problem for me to go for CP ? Will consular office consider it a public charge and deny my GC ? Just in case if I get denial how to overcome that denial ? is there a standard process ? Will it affect my husband's GC ?
rangaswamy
06-06 08:10 PM
Where can i get photos for the Canadian visa. they have different specs. from the US pp photograph. I have already checked- Costco, USPS and the other stores.
I plan to call Sears tomorrow.
any helps is appreciated.
Thanks
I plan to call Sears tomorrow.
any helps is appreciated.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment