sgorla
06-19 09:40 PM
Anyone?
wallpaper 70th irthday decorations
immique
06-26 09:48 PM
I applied for extension of stay to California Sercice Center. But if I move to Texas, will be my case transfered to VSC??
Lelica
if it is an extension of B2 status, I don't think your case will be transferred to a different center if you move to a different state. you just have to inform the service center regarding change of address(I think you can send a AR-11 form) this is just my personal opinion. please check with the lawyer who filed your extension or other experts
Lelica
if it is an extension of B2 status, I don't think your case will be transferred to a different center if you move to a different state. you just have to inform the service center regarding change of address(I think you can send a AR-11 form) this is just my personal opinion. please check with the lawyer who filed your extension or other experts
TexDBoy
07-21 09:57 PM
I was also doing my part-time when I went for Visa ... For 33, I did say "yes" and gave the University name.
Not sure if IO looked at it ... did not ask me any questions regarding that ...
Not sure if IO looked at it ... did not ask me any questions regarding that ...
2011 Party table decorations
fromnaija
01-17 09:55 AM
I applied I-140 in EB2 NIW category. I need to apply for H1 extension as this is my 5th year. I need to talk to my employer.
I see because of retrogression one cannot file for I-485.
Can I file for extension of H1 after I get I-140 approval or do I have to wait for I-1485 filing.
Please advise.
After 140 approval you can file for H1 extension and get a three year extension.
I see because of retrogression one cannot file for I-485.
Can I file for extension of H1 after I get I-140 approval or do I have to wait for I-1485 filing.
Please advise.
After 140 approval you can file for H1 extension and get a three year extension.
more...
Blog Feeds
04-28 08:30 AM
On May 1, 2006, hundreds of thousands of immigrants around the country demonstrated against a restrictive immigration bill introduced in Congress. This weekend, similar demonstrations will occur around the US. I'll be attending my 20th law school reunion in Chicago this weekend and am hoping to attend that rally. I'd really rather be at the one in Phoenix and look forward to hearing reports from there.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/proimmigration-rallies-set-for-saturday-around-the-country.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/proimmigration-rallies-set-for-saturday-around-the-country.html)
sherlock01
12-17 08:01 PM
My wife who is a derivative applicant for the GC is employed on EAD. She has been advised to go on a pregnancy short term disability leave by the doctor. We live in California and her company provides the short term disability through the California SDI.
Is it ok to claim this while having applied for GC. Is the SDI by any chance considered a public charge? Any help would be appreciated.
Is it ok to claim this while having applied for GC. Is the SDI by any chance considered a public charge? Any help would be appreciated.
more...
raysaikat
04-28 03:35 PM
What is the difference been EB2 Vs EB2 NIW and when does one qualify for NIW
National Interest Waiver means that you do not have to have a job to petition for EB-2 GC. Consequently, there is no labor certification requirement. NIW petition is your petition; not some employers.
National Interest Waiver means that you do not have to have a job to petition for EB-2 GC. Consequently, there is no labor certification requirement. NIW petition is your petition; not some employers.
2010 My Dream Birthday - Party
aa0406
01-30 11:44 AM
i got married with my husband right before he filed his i-485, so we can file it together. His i-485 recently got approved, mine is still pending since March 2007. After speaking with IO, I found out that my name check is pending. My name is not common, I had no interaction with a law agencies in any way. So, I suspect that name check is just an excuse.
My question is, can my marriage to my husband just before i-485 filing be a reason I am still waiting? Has anybody experienced something like this? I'm not from a country where arranged marriages are common practice and we have a child together.
My question is, can my marriage to my husband just before i-485 filing be a reason I am still waiting? Has anybody experienced something like this? I'm not from a country where arranged marriages are common practice and we have a child together.
more...
zwswim
01-26 01:03 PM
I am a chinese. My company would like to support my green card applicaion this year. I also plan to be married this year or early next year. My wife is a F1 student from china.
As I know that my wife can be a dependent in my green card application. If I start the green card application process from next month, is it ok that I add a wife as my green card application dependent if we get married at around Nov 2011.
How to handle the GC application and marriage in a good way? I means any schedule or trick I need pay attention on.
Thanks
As I know that my wife can be a dependent in my green card application. If I start the green card application process from next month, is it ok that I add a wife as my green card application dependent if we get married at around Nov 2011.
How to handle the GC application and marriage in a good way? I means any schedule or trick I need pay attention on.
Thanks
hair Molly#39;s Party. The table
arnab221
06-19 07:35 PM
Please post your source of information before you launch an endless thread of speculation ..
more...
srisai122
12-30 04:06 AM
Company A filed my I-140 and it got approved, however I have not been provided with copy of the approval notice. I don't have the receipt number either. In this case, is it possible to obtain the copy of I-140 thru FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)?
Thank you for the help.
Thank you for the help.
hot party table decorations
Jaibalaji
11-20 11:19 PM
Hi all,
My wife was laid off a couple of days ago. She has efiled H1->H4 status change application which recommended by HR. However she needs out of USA because of family issue next month. She has valid AP.
Here my questions:
When she travel outside of U.S. before the H1-> H4 change application is approved, her application for status change is automatically canceled/invalid. Is that true?
2. She only could use AP to re-enter USA. She needs to resubmit H1->H4 after she back USA. Should she cancel the previous one? If any effect on her I-485 application?
3. Is any premium process for H1->H4?
Thanks!
Jaibalaji
My wife was laid off a couple of days ago. She has efiled H1->H4 status change application which recommended by HR. However she needs out of USA because of family issue next month. She has valid AP.
Here my questions:
When she travel outside of U.S. before the H1-> H4 change application is approved, her application for status change is automatically canceled/invalid. Is that true?
2. She only could use AP to re-enter USA. She needs to resubmit H1->H4 after she back USA. Should she cancel the previous one? If any effect on her I-485 application?
3. Is any premium process for H1->H4?
Thanks!
Jaibalaji
more...
house Decorate your table with
Karthikthiru
09-23 05:21 PM
Thanks. Easy for doing calculations
tattoo Birthday Party Decoration
rahulpaper
12-04 11:04 AM
My case is NSC>>CSC>>NSC and the received date is listed incorrectly on transfer notice....
Receipt Notice from CSC has correct received date of July 31st 2007
but
Transfer Notice from NSC has received date of Oct 12th 2007
Oct 12th seems to be the date when my case was tranferred back to NSC.
I have 3 questions for you...
1) Are other folks also observing this in their case?
2) Will NSC process my case based on Received date from (CSC notice) or their own transfer notice?
3) Whats the process to get received date fixed?
Thanks in advance.
Receipt Notice from CSC has correct received date of July 31st 2007
but
Transfer Notice from NSC has received date of Oct 12th 2007
Oct 12th seems to be the date when my case was tranferred back to NSC.
I have 3 questions for you...
1) Are other folks also observing this in their case?
2) Will NSC process my case based on Received date from (CSC notice) or their own transfer notice?
3) Whats the process to get received date fixed?
Thanks in advance.
more...
pictures yo gabba irthday party
Sumedha_inCal
03-10 02:40 PM
Thanks
dresses Table Decor Sign
Blog Feeds
02-15 08:40 PM
Today's news that Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh will be retiring is probably bad news for much of the Democrat's legislative agenda. But when it comes to immigration, this is probably a good news day. Bayh's last vote on comprehensive immigration reform was a bad one. He voted with anti-immigration Senators to filibuster the 2007 version of comprehensive immigration reform and there is little reason to believe his vote in 2010 would be different. On the other hand, Senator Lugar, his Republican counterpart from Indiana, is a much more likely vote in favor reform. Bayh may feel freer to vote...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/bayh-retirement-could-be-good-news-for-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/bayh-retirement-could-be-good-news-for-immigration-reform.html)
more...
makeup party table decorations
gman
10-17 07:23 PM
I am on H1-B. I filed I-485, I-131 and I-765 in August 2007 under EB3 (ROW). I got married in Sept 2007 but my wife is still in home country due to J-1 2 year HRR. Her 2 years are up in Jan 15, 2008 and she plans to join me on H4.
1. Does my company or I need to do anything for her to apply for a visa at the consulate? Does she take a copy of my H1-B approval marriage certificate and that's it?
2. When she comes the US at the end of January we plan on filing I-485 for her based on my application pending. Can she file for AP and EAD at the same time? Would she be able to work on EAD if it gets approved?
3. I got a letter in the mail today that I have to appear for biometrics on Nov 07, 2007. Does it mean that after my biometrics are taken my GC could get approved right away, even though EB3-ROW is no longer current?
4. After my I-485 has been pending for 180 days, does it mean I could take a similar job anywhere?
Thanks in advance!
1. Does my company or I need to do anything for her to apply for a visa at the consulate? Does she take a copy of my H1-B approval marriage certificate and that's it?
2. When she comes the US at the end of January we plan on filing I-485 for her based on my application pending. Can she file for AP and EAD at the same time? Would she be able to work on EAD if it gets approved?
3. I got a letter in the mail today that I have to appear for biometrics on Nov 07, 2007. Does it mean that after my biometrics are taken my GC could get approved right away, even though EB3-ROW is no longer current?
4. After my I-485 has been pending for 180 days, does it mean I could take a similar job anywhere?
Thanks in advance!
girlfriend Turn your party table into a
chanduv23
11-17 10:12 PM
If you live in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and anywhere else in the Upstate NY region, please post here.
hairstyles 21st Birthday 15 Inch Black
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.
reddymjm
01-22 01:35 PM
It would be nice if we can co-ordinate and do it in all Major cities at the same time.
upuaut8
10-31 02:00 AM
or using action script to place dots in a line, also works.
No comments:
Post a Comment