Blog Feeds
12-10 09:30 AM
The media really should have picked up the truly obnoxious (and completely false) appeal to racism to convince his colleagues to vote against the DREAM Act last night: Mr. Speaker, if this act passes, if an illegal immigrant happens to be of a racial or ethnic minority, which the vast majority of illegal immigrants are, that individual, as soon as legal status is granted, will be entitled to all the education, employment, job training, government contracts, and other minority preferences that are written into our Federal and State laws. As a result, the DREAM Act would not only put illegal...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/rohrabacher-plays-race-card-in-arguing-against-dream-act.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/rohrabacher-plays-race-card-in-arguing-against-dream-act.html)
wallpaper pictures How I do my hair amp; some of my how to do the poof hairstyle.
dummgelauft
02-15 11:18 PM
I wish he catches ALL trespassing illegals and pushes them back across the southern border.
Illegal trespassers are hold ding skilled immigrant community hostage....Booo..bloody..hooo, cry me a river.
Joe Rocks..
Illegal trespassers are hold ding skilled immigrant community hostage....Booo..bloody..hooo, cry me a river.
Joe Rocks..
test005
05-14 03:02 PM
Please suggest
2011 Poof hairstyle?
jitnair
08-05 11:56 AM
Saw in a IV post (looking for the link) that an NSC IO told that they will adjudicate applications with Name Check pending only if they dont hear back from FBI by November,08. Below link may offer some clues on why "November".
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/NameCheck_2Apr08.pdf
Not to read too much in to what one IO might have said...but Wanted to see if there is any truth to this as I remember seeing folks approved with Namecheck pending on some forums. So pl. post here if you fit in to the above category.
God only knows what is in stock for November visa dates.
EB2, Sep 04
NC: Pending (Per Infopass on 8/5)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/NameCheck_2Apr08.pdf
Not to read too much in to what one IO might have said...but Wanted to see if there is any truth to this as I remember seeing folks approved with Namecheck pending on some forums. So pl. post here if you fit in to the above category.
God only knows what is in stock for November visa dates.
EB2, Sep 04
NC: Pending (Per Infopass on 8/5)
more...
a_yaja
06-14 03:40 PM
Now that the I-485 gates have been opened, I would like to know what will happen to my spouse's H1B application pending before USCIS? Since I am planning on filing for I-485 for my spouse as well, will the H1B process make a difference? Or will the H1B approval cause any issues to the I-485 application?
Please help!
Please help!
solaris27
01-31 10:04 AM
i got in 2-3 days
more...
tommui
06-24 09:51 PM
Hi
it seems most/all of multimedia jobs are project-based/short term/freelanced, is there any multimedia permanent job which you can sit in a fix studio to work on, maybe 5 days a week, just like some administration/office fulltime position (e.g. clark/marketing person).
Work in some multimedia comp/film company maybe one of the solution, anyone could give me more ideas/suggestions & I dont know which multimedia/film is the big one / famous...:puzzle:
Thks
Tom
it seems most/all of multimedia jobs are project-based/short term/freelanced, is there any multimedia permanent job which you can sit in a fix studio to work on, maybe 5 days a week, just like some administration/office fulltime position (e.g. clark/marketing person).
Work in some multimedia comp/film company maybe one of the solution, anyone could give me more ideas/suggestions & I dont know which multimedia/film is the big one / famous...:puzzle:
Thks
Tom
2010 Vanessa L Williams Hairstyles
Janisaris
08-24 10:10 AM
I am a July 19th filer and I have not received my receipts. I checked with my lawyer yesterday and they have not received either. Since my lawyer issued all the checks I have no idea whether my checks are cleared or not. So here is my question. How long will it take for the actual reciept after the check clearance.
PD: 17th May 2004
I140: 5the June 2005
I485 : Filed on 19th July
PD: 17th May 2004
I140: 5the June 2005
I485 : Filed on 19th July
more...
pan123
01-10 02:12 PM
Guys,
I remember I have seen this in some thread but I can't find it now. So I am repeating question here:
My receipt number starts with EAC. In order to check processing times, which service center I should be looking at?
Thanks,
I remember I have seen this in some thread but I can't find it now. So I am repeating question here:
My receipt number starts with EAC. In order to check processing times, which service center I should be looking at?
Thanks,
hair with an over-the-top poof
geevikram
11-22 12:02 PM
I work for company A which is pretty stable,on a H1b visa. I've no problems except that you will not find another horrible boss anywhere. Trust me, I've worked in quite some places and I've seen pretty bad bosses, but with this guy, you have someone who will always make you look bad and will literally shout at you. I've had enough and I want to switch.
I've around 3 yrs left on h1. The new company will sponsor my H1b and they will start my GC on the first week of my starting. (the person hiring me is a good friend)
The question I have is, what happens to the h1 that company A is holding when I transfer to Company B . There might be a reason company A's CTO might not want me to leave. He also cannot do anything about my boss at this point. It gets little complex at this point, but I want to know if i can work part time on h1b for company A while I work as full time for company B.
Sorry for the big post and thanks for your help.
I've around 3 yrs left on h1. The new company will sponsor my H1b and they will start my GC on the first week of my starting. (the person hiring me is a good friend)
The question I have is, what happens to the h1 that company A is holding when I transfer to Company B . There might be a reason company A's CTO might not want me to leave. He also cannot do anything about my boss at this point. It gets little complex at this point, but I want to know if i can work part time on h1b for company A while I work as full time for company B.
Sorry for the big post and thanks for your help.
more...
imh1b
05-19 09:41 AM
I like to read this Immigrant of the day post. It makes me feel proud of being an immigrant.
hot 5 easy braided hair styles
Domino
11-03 02:14 AM
Hello,
If one has EB1 (Extraordinary Ability) Pending, is one allowed to stay in the US until the case is decided? I know it may takes at least an year for the final approval...
If one has EB1 (Extraordinary Ability) Pending, is one allowed to stay in the US until the case is decided? I know it may takes at least an year for the final approval...
more...
house Poof-Proof Hairstyles: The
chanduv23
09-15 04:23 PM
Bump
tattoo style usually By poof
H1B-GC-NY
06-18 08:50 AM
Category: EB3 - PD: July 2003
Processing Center: NSC
I-140 application: Oct-2006
I485 application : July-02-2007
I140/I485 denial : April 2008
MTR application : April 2008
I485 reopened : June-2008
I140 approval : June 2008
I-765 [EAD] : Delivered September 2007
Question:
NSC is now processing July-28-2007.
Which is the processing DATE for my I485?
- PD
- I485 application
- I485 date the case was reopened
:confused:
Processing Center: NSC
I-140 application: Oct-2006
I485 application : July-02-2007
I140/I485 denial : April 2008
MTR application : April 2008
I485 reopened : June-2008
I140 approval : June 2008
I-765 [EAD] : Delivered September 2007
Question:
NSC is now processing July-28-2007.
Which is the processing DATE for my I485?
- PD
- I485 application
- I485 date the case was reopened
:confused:
more...
pictures poof short hairstyles 6
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.
dresses hairstyles for prom 2011 long
varesident
06-29 11:56 PM
I changed my employer 3 months back and didn't expect the dates to get current so soon. My labor with the new employer has just been filed. However, my previous employer told me that if I want to continue with my gc process with them, I need to be their employee again.
Does it make sense for me to do this ? My 485 will not get filed until 10 days from now because I have yet to start with the paperwork.
Will the dates retrogress by then? Please advise me folks.
Does it make sense for me to do this ? My 485 will not get filed until 10 days from now because I have yet to start with the paperwork.
Will the dates retrogress by then? Please advise me folks.
more...
makeup ruts with her hairstyles.
ysramu
01-02 02:05 PM
My AP approvals are lost in mail, my employer mailed them in ordinary mail during holiday season (12/11/07). What can I do next? Go thru attorney for duplicates? Please advice.
girlfriend the trendy hairstyle was
Blog Feeds
05-26 11:30 AM
The Senate has passed a resolution sponsored by Senators Kohl (D-WI), Voinovich (R-OH), Brownback (R-KS) and Wyden (D-OR) that recognizes June 6th, 1939 as one of the most shameful days in American immigration history. The text of S. Res. 111 tells the story: Recognizing June 6, 2009, as the 70th anniversary of the tragic date when the M.S. St. Louis, a ship carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, returned to Europe after its passengers were refused admittance to the United States. Whereas on May 13, 1939, the ocean liner M.S. St. Louis departed from Hamburg, Germany for Havana, Cuba with...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/resolution-would-recognize-ss-st-louis-tragedy.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/resolution-would-recognize-ss-st-louis-tragedy.html)
hairstyles Front Poof Hairstyle.
nirmal301
03-23 12:12 AM
G'day Mates & Buddies,
Thanks for maintaining excellent site and answering all sorts of different complex questions.
Now my story.
I am going to apply in next H1B quota and was having below queries:
1. I am confuse about what kind of h1b interview questions will be ask by consulate officer
2. Will they ask my previous work experience letter.. because currently I am in Australia and my work experience was in India and there's no way I can have letter now.
3. How's the job market for Enterprise Oracle DBA
4. And Do I need to keep any extra precautions from start in order to be safe from all future legal problems being a consultant.
Thanks in advance for viewing and replying.
Cheers,
Nirmal
Go Desi's Go ;)
Thanks for maintaining excellent site and answering all sorts of different complex questions.
Now my story.
I am going to apply in next H1B quota and was having below queries:
1. I am confuse about what kind of h1b interview questions will be ask by consulate officer
2. Will they ask my previous work experience letter.. because currently I am in Australia and my work experience was in India and there's no way I can have letter now.
3. How's the job market for Enterprise Oracle DBA
4. And Do I need to keep any extra precautions from start in order to be safe from all future legal problems being a consultant.
Thanks in advance for viewing and replying.
Cheers,
Nirmal
Go Desi's Go ;)
esurfer
01-24 11:00 AM
Is it possible to upgrade a pending I-485 (EB3 I-140) with a newly approved EB2 I-140?
Is there any USCIS mandated procedure to do that?
Is there any USCIS mandated procedure to do that?
belmontboy
09-24 09:25 PM
Not sure if this is posted before..
Check the PDF file on the right of the link for the numbers
USCIS - Questions & Answers: Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Inventory (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb7e3210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=ae853ad15c673210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
good morning :)
Check the PDF file on the right of the link for the numbers
USCIS - Questions & Answers: Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Inventory (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb7e3210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=ae853ad15c673210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
good morning :)
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기