Blog Feeds
11-28 04:21 AM
Roll Call has an interesting analysis of this. Some Democrats believe that they have the votes and they can use immigration reform to brand their party as the true home for the country's Hispanic voters only if they leave the GOP out of the process. And most in the GOP will probably be fine with this except the small number that understand just how dangerous it is for the future of the GOP to be branded the anti-immigrant party.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/the-dems-dilemma-to-bring-or-not-bring-republicans-in-to-immigration-reform-process.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/the-dems-dilemma-to-bring-or-not-bring-republicans-in-to-immigration-reform-process.html)
wallpaper emo hairstyles for girls with
admin
01-27 01:49 PM
Immigration Voice Web Fax is live. You can now send faxes to highlight your issues, ask for meetings and so on. Currently there are only 3 faxes but we will be introducing many more over the coming days. This is a very easy way for all affected people to get involved in this effort. Please start sending those faxes and do spread the word to your friends and families.
In the interest of effectiveness and cost, users will be able to send each fax to only 3 lawmakers( their 2 senators and one congressman). Also to increase the efficiency of the faxes, each user can send only one fax per day.
To access the Web Fax feature got the Immigration Voice home page and click on Web Fax from the left hand side links.
Raise your voice and be heard.
-admin
In the interest of effectiveness and cost, users will be able to send each fax to only 3 lawmakers( their 2 senators and one congressman). Also to increase the efficiency of the faxes, each user can send only one fax per day.
To access the Web Fax feature got the Immigration Voice home page and click on Web Fax from the left hand side links.
Raise your voice and be heard.
-admin
pcs
07-14 07:51 PM
We are very proud of all the guys / gals, who were there.
If possible, this great group can be divided in sub groups of 25 members each with few key co-ordinators in each sub group.
This organized team of great people will go a long way to support future drives of IV.
I know, I should have suggested this before...
Can we create a mechanism by which we can organize these teams of great members ???
If possible, this great group can be divided in sub groups of 25 members each with few key co-ordinators in each sub group.
This organized team of great people will go a long way to support future drives of IV.
I know, I should have suggested this before...
Can we create a mechanism by which we can organize these teams of great members ???
2011 dread hairstyles. crown Dread-hawk hairstyle; crown Dread-hawk hairstyle
raysaikat
02-13 03:56 AM
I have a gc. Can I sponsor my parents for GC ?
Thanks,
theOne
AFAIK, you will need to have citizenship.
Thanks,
theOne
AFAIK, you will need to have citizenship.
more...
hiralal
04-28 07:36 AM
the old thread was deleted by someone (I hope by mistake or by automatic s.ware - since I don't know why anyone would do that - everyone has a family).
This is my last post and thread on this subject and I have even updated my profile (since some gave me red for this in the last thread .. I hope they do contribute too ..even a small amount like $20 goes a long way).
you can send a money order if you are concerned about sending a check.
http://news.iskcon.com/node/1894/200...urn_harish_roy
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Mourners_Say_Goodbye_to_Slain_Clerk_032809
---------
Please tell your friends if they want to make a contribution they can mail cheques to Iskcon of atlanta. Make sure to write for Harish.
Please mail the cheques to 1287 south ponce de leon ave, Atlanta ga 30306.
Thank you,
This is my last post and thread on this subject and I have even updated my profile (since some gave me red for this in the last thread .. I hope they do contribute too ..even a small amount like $20 goes a long way).
you can send a money order if you are concerned about sending a check.
http://news.iskcon.com/node/1894/200...urn_harish_roy
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Mourners_Say_Goodbye_to_Slain_Clerk_032809
---------
Please tell your friends if they want to make a contribution they can mail cheques to Iskcon of atlanta. Make sure to write for Harish.
Please mail the cheques to 1287 south ponce de leon ave, Atlanta ga 30306.
Thank you,
ocpmachine
07-12 03:48 PM
Employment- Based
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born DOMINICAN REPUBLIC INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C C
2nd C 01MAR06 C 01MAR06 C C
3rd 01JUN04 22SEP03 01JUN04 01JAN02 U 01JUN04
Other Workers 15MAY02 15MAY02 15MAY02 01JAN02 U 15MAY02
4th C C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C C
5th C C C C C C
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs C C C C C C
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born DOMINICAN REPUBLIC INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C C
2nd C 01MAR06 C 01MAR06 C C
3rd 01JUN04 22SEP03 01JUN04 01JAN02 U 01JUN04
Other Workers 15MAY02 15MAY02 15MAY02 01JAN02 U 15MAY02
4th C C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C C
5th C C C C C C
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs C C C C C C
more...
grimreaper
11-17 12:37 PM
Yes , Under certain circumstances. You will either need to qualify for economic hardship, or it should be done via CPT ( it should be offered by your program). Best bet will be for you to talk to your International student advisor.
2010 pictures dread hairstyles. some dread hairstyles. hairstyles dread locks
vikki76
07-14 08:12 PM
Yes- you can start sole proprietorship on EAD and there is no need to inform USCIS. Only complications will be taxes, nothing else.
Sole Proprietorship should not become your main employer if you are main (primary) applicant of 485 application.
Sole Proprietorship should not become your main employer if you are main (primary) applicant of 485 application.
more...
gettinthere
02-12 11:31 PM
Hi
I am currently working on H1B visa. I also had an EAD which expired 2 months back & I applied for renewal of the EAD last month. I am at the risk of being laid off by my current employer & they will withdraw my H1B if that happens. Here are my queries-
(1) If I lose my H1 status & my EAD approval is still pending, what do I need to do? If I am unable to find a new H1B sponsor, will I have to leave US immediately?
(2) Will my H1 cancellation have any effect on my EAD & AP renewal petition?
(3) Can I return to US & work after my AP & EAD are approved?
(4) If my EAD approval happens before my H1B visa is revoked, can I legally stay & work in US on the basis of ONLY the EAD?
Thanks in advance for your advice!
I am currently working on H1B visa. I also had an EAD which expired 2 months back & I applied for renewal of the EAD last month. I am at the risk of being laid off by my current employer & they will withdraw my H1B if that happens. Here are my queries-
(1) If I lose my H1 status & my EAD approval is still pending, what do I need to do? If I am unable to find a new H1B sponsor, will I have to leave US immediately?
(2) Will my H1 cancellation have any effect on my EAD & AP renewal petition?
(3) Can I return to US & work after my AP & EAD are approved?
(4) If my EAD approval happens before my H1B visa is revoked, can I legally stay & work in US on the basis of ONLY the EAD?
Thanks in advance for your advice!
hair Gothic Hairstyles Dread falls
Blog Feeds
01-04 08:10 AM
USCIS has announced that it is working on a rule to create an electronic registration system for H-1B employers subject to the annual cap. Employers would first register an application and be allocated an H-1B cap number and then would file the case. The idea is that employers would need to register to claim an H-1B cap number first and then if they are selected, they then would prepare and file the case. Right now, employers have to go to all the trouble of preparing a case that may be rejected simply because the visa allocation is filled. I think...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
more...
legalalien
05-05 04:09 PM
Hello,
I recently received my Greencard. Will be getting married in a few months and wanted to find out the options available to sponsor my fiance. Fiance is a british citizen, does that help in any way? Also she is a qualified Doctor in the UK and is planning on taking USMLE part 1 & 2 prior to the wedding. Is it prudent to have her move to the US on an H1B instead?
Thanks
I recently received my Greencard. Will be getting married in a few months and wanted to find out the options available to sponsor my fiance. Fiance is a british citizen, does that help in any way? Also she is a qualified Doctor in the UK and is planning on taking USMLE part 1 & 2 prior to the wedding. Is it prudent to have her move to the US on an H1B instead?
Thanks
hot of dreadlock hairstyles.
brick2006
11-03 05:26 PM
bump
more...
house dreadlock hairstyles.
ita
07-24 05:30 PM
My attorney sent the EAD application to Nebraska SC.
Earlier my 485/EAD/AP were all sent to Texas Center.
Does anyone know if this is fine .. sending the renewal papers to Nebraska?
I'm also trying to find out from my attorney why they were sent to NSC and not TSC
Thank you.
Earlier my 485/EAD/AP were all sent to Texas Center.
Does anyone know if this is fine .. sending the renewal papers to Nebraska?
I'm also trying to find out from my attorney why they were sent to NSC and not TSC
Thank you.
tattoo short hair hairstyles.
godspeed
06-28 01:33 PM
hmm, not sure why this is not displayed
more...
pictures Dreadlock hairstyles
ameerka_dream
03-31 08:13 AM
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea.
so what 's good idea to you......putting all of EB applicants who are waiting to file 485 in waiting state until you get your GC is a good idea?
First of all, why are you being worried about this action item being EB1 applicant and you will get your GC in no time...
I don't think you are from EB1 category...You are selfish mind who holds EAD and doesn't want other EB applicants to come in to 485 waiting line.
would you have had the same thought if there was no July 07 fiasco and if you would need to wait in the line........selfish minds like you can't stop this action item.
Stop opposing this item here. &&%^%^%$$#####
so what 's good idea to you......putting all of EB applicants who are waiting to file 485 in waiting state until you get your GC is a good idea?
First of all, why are you being worried about this action item being EB1 applicant and you will get your GC in no time...
I don't think you are from EB1 category...You are selfish mind who holds EAD and doesn't want other EB applicants to come in to 485 waiting line.
would you have had the same thought if there was no July 07 fiasco and if you would need to wait in the line........selfish minds like you can't stop this action item.
Stop opposing this item here. &&%^%^%$$#####
dresses dread, locks, dreadlocks, hair
gc_check
03-18 11:20 PM
No, Only a Green Card holder in a Legal Permanment Resident. All other Visa Holder or Pending AOS is not LRP yet, but that should not cause an issue with your loan application. They might ask additional documents to validate you status here, but should be okay.
more...
makeup Six Flags Rejects Dreadlocked
whoever
03-24 12:41 AM
how did you get h1 without quota?
girlfriend these groovy hair styles,
mrudul_hr
12-14 01:13 PM
If you are working on a project right now, move to another company with the project who can sponser you.. if you need assistance you can reach me private..
hairstyles Jason Momoa with Dreadlocks
wildcherry47
07-05 04:35 AM
Hi,
Received your message. Thanks for your reply.
Received your message. Thanks for your reply.
cladden
02-23 03:33 PM
I have a copy of Nolo Fiance and marriage Visas and in the section on I130 it says that my copies of G-325A must be filed in four copies printed on differently colored paper (white, green, pink and blue).
A) Is this really necessary?
B) If yes, I have actually bought paper in these colors. Does it have to a particular pink, blue, green etc?
C) The pages in the PDF are actually named
1) Ident.
2) Rec. Br
3) C.
4) Consulate
Which color matches which index? E.g. is the Ident one supposed to be white, blue, pink or green?
Hope someone knows about this.
Thanks
A) Is this really necessary?
B) If yes, I have actually bought paper in these colors. Does it have to a particular pink, blue, green etc?
C) The pages in the PDF are actually named
1) Ident.
2) Rec. Br
3) C.
4) Consulate
Which color matches which index? E.g. is the Ident one supposed to be white, blue, pink or green?
Hope someone knows about this.
Thanks
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment