Blog Feeds
09-27 10:50 AM
Most people have now heard about Stephen Colbert's testimony in front of the House Immigration Subcommittee this week on the subject of new laws for migrant farmworkers. Some have criticized the Committee for letting the comedian speak. I say, how high can the standards be if they let me testify? My friend Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy has a thoughtful piece explaining why the testimony was helpful. Here's the video link if you missed the testimony.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/colbert-speaks-the-truthiness.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/colbert-speaks-the-truthiness.html)
wallpaper 39 quotes from
apahilaj
07-22 07:06 PM
Hello All,
I've been reading a lot on these forums about guys asking where to send 485 applications to. While my I-140 got approved from Texas center (originally filed at Nebraska center) , my lawyer still sent my 485 application to Nebraska center. I think, he has made a correct decision since, 485 form mentions that all employment based applications should be sent to Nebraska center. Please correct me If I am mistaken.
Secondly, the application fee can be in the form of personal check made payable to USCIS or Department of Homeland security. I've made checks payable to USCIS - does any one know if the check has to say "USCIS" or should it say "United States Citizenship and Immigration Services"? I would think just "USCIS" would suffice.
Any light shed on these two points would be greatly appreciated...
I've been reading a lot on these forums about guys asking where to send 485 applications to. While my I-140 got approved from Texas center (originally filed at Nebraska center) , my lawyer still sent my 485 application to Nebraska center. I think, he has made a correct decision since, 485 form mentions that all employment based applications should be sent to Nebraska center. Please correct me If I am mistaken.
Secondly, the application fee can be in the form of personal check made payable to USCIS or Department of Homeland security. I've made checks payable to USCIS - does any one know if the check has to say "USCIS" or should it say "United States Citizenship and Immigration Services"? I would think just "USCIS" would suffice.
Any light shed on these two points would be greatly appreciated...
Blog Feeds
12-19 01:00 PM
The Congressional starter pistol on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) has been fired skyward with the release of a 644-page mish-mash of proposed changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act that will both please and infuriate pro- and anti-immigration combatants in the Capitol and throughout the land. Introduced by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), the bill with three names (the ��Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America�s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009,�� the ��Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009,��and the ��CIR ASAP Act of 2009��) is the first sortie in the coming Congressional ground war over immigration policy. With the release...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/cir-asap-an-immigration-hard-slap-to-business.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/cir-asap-an-immigration-hard-slap-to-business.html)
2011 If you know the enemy quotes
designflaw
12-16 06:06 AM
I dont think I would trust your friend's cousin on that based on what I have read on here and other places. PD of aug-05 and EB3-I, I have my doubts, but if it is true, I am happy for him.
more...
irock
09-29 03:30 PM
Hi
I am July 2nd filer at NSC.
I got my EAD approved from NSC on 25th. I see a message-- card ordered. Today there is one LUD , approval notice sent.
Is this common
---
Contributed $150 so far
Same thing happened with my EAD. So I'm assuming this is common.
I am July 2nd filer at NSC.
I got my EAD approved from NSC on 25th. I see a message-- card ordered. Today there is one LUD , approval notice sent.
Is this common
---
Contributed $150 so far
Same thing happened with my EAD. So I'm assuming this is common.
zoxtannin
03-22 02:57 AM
Got an offer this year from a New Jersey based company called PR Consultants. Does anyone has any information about this company? Any help can be really useful ..
more...
ab3
04-01 06:11 PM
I think I found my answer - instructions seem to say it's not a required answer but a "conditional" answer.
2010 quotes for enemy.
adham_a
04-16 09:40 AM
Akira stamp all materials used are copyright of their respective owners
more...
solaris27
08-11 06:13 PM
anyone
hair Air Quotes: With Uncles Like
feedfront
10-13 02:04 PM
Yes, even primary applicant can work on EAD & 1099. But in case RFE is issued for EVL the primary applicant should have permanent full time position.
I've worked on EAD & 1099 during job switch phase.
I've worked on EAD & 1099 during job switch phase.
more...
yawkabore
01-28 11:46 AM
Please I need advice. I am currently preparing to file I-140/I-485 concurrent application and do not want to include the names of my children who are US citizens on the application. This is because I do not want the name of their mom to come up since I don't want to add her name too to the application. Although we got married outside the US, and I mistakenly wrote that with her name on my B1/B2 application I still will want to file this application as single. She has some issues to clear with USCIS and I do not want to complicate matters by adding her name to my application. I truly will appreciate your advice on this matter before I submit my application. Thank you
hot Quote: 1; 0
Blog Feeds
12-01 09:00 AM
From UPI: U.S. Latinos, feeling neglected by both parties, are discussing forming an independent "Tequila Party" force, leaders say. "I don't know if it's going to happen, but there's talk," Fernando Romero, president of Nevada's Hispanics in Politics, told the Las Vegas Sun. "There's discussion about empowerment of the Latino vote." The idea, being debated in Nevada and around the country, stems from frustration over the Democrats' inaction on immigration reform and feelings of being taken for granted. While I wouldn't put too much credence in this happening any time soon, it does raise the point that Latinos expect more...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/warning-to-dems-latinos-could-form-new-political-party.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/warning-to-dems-latinos-could-form-new-political-party.html)
more...
house quotes for enemies. crac. wise
Macaca
11-14 09:30 PM
Congress Needs Both Comity and Accomplishments (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27104,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call, November 14, 2007
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
tattoo Insulting Quotes For Enemies.
Blog Feeds
05-17 12:40 PM
Here's the news release from the ACLU: The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona challenging Arizona's new law requiring police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. The extreme law, the coalition charged, invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law. The coalition filing the lawsuit includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/rights-groups-file-class-action-challenging-arizona-law.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/rights-groups-file-class-action-challenging-arizona-law.html)
more...
pictures quotes on enemies quotes
gvenkat
02-03 12:28 PM
Hi,
I need to get my H1B stamped in Mexico. I know there are some agencies which offer a complete package trip to the Mexico US Consulate. Does anybody know some names and contact information?
I am based in Los Angeles and am pretty close to Mexico border. Do they have something in Southern California? Other places are also Ok.
Thanks,
Prashant.
on a lighter note... just cross the border nah... :D:D but tto ur questions... I think that victorgarcia is helpful...
I need to get my H1B stamped in Mexico. I know there are some agencies which offer a complete package trip to the Mexico US Consulate. Does anybody know some names and contact information?
I am based in Los Angeles and am pretty close to Mexico border. Do they have something in Southern California? Other places are also Ok.
Thanks,
Prashant.
on a lighter note... just cross the border nah... :D:D but tto ur questions... I think that victorgarcia is helpful...
dresses insulting quotes for enemies
sorcerer666
10-01 05:37 AM
I wouldnt thikn that it should be a problem at all
more...
makeup Quote about enemy | Quote by
omega
06-20 11:16 AM
Hi,
I know this is forum is not the correct place to discuss this topic. But I am posting this because some members of the forum must have already faced ths issue.
I ahve a one month old newborn. We are planning to go to India for vacation end of July. I have to apply for my baby's US passport. But she has not received her SSN. The instuction says that SSN is not mandatory but IRS can fine you if you dont disclose that information. I tries to contact SSN office, IRS office and Passport Office. Each one will point to the other Agency. So not sure what what to do. Anyone who was in the same boat, please let me know whether there are any issues with applying for passport without SSN number.
Thanks
I know this is forum is not the correct place to discuss this topic. But I am posting this because some members of the forum must have already faced ths issue.
I ahve a one month old newborn. We are planning to go to India for vacation end of July. I have to apply for my baby's US passport. But she has not received her SSN. The instuction says that SSN is not mandatory but IRS can fine you if you dont disclose that information. I tries to contact SSN office, IRS office and Passport Office. Each one will point to the other Agency. So not sure what what to do. Anyone who was in the same boat, please let me know whether there are any issues with applying for passport without SSN number.
Thanks
girlfriend buffy quotes,; enemies,
chayadevi
03-22 04:40 PM
hello
Is any one there who changed their status form h4-h1 status using amendment process.please let me know.I am in tough situation now.
Is any one there who changed their status form h4-h1 status using amendment process.please let me know.I am in tough situation now.
hairstyles quotes for enemies.
Macaca
03-01 11:02 AM
Some paras from The Myth of the Middle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801817.html)
One explanation for all this is that politicians are acting against the will of their compromise-loving constituents. Another is that Republicans and Democrats are simply being good representatives. We think the evidence supports the second interpretation.
The Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) surveyed more than 24,000 Americans who voted in 2006. The Internet-based survey compiled by researchers at 30 universities produced a sample that almost perfectly matched the national House election results: 54 percent of the respondents reported voting for a Democrat, while 46 percent said they voted for a Republican. The demographic characteristics of the voters surveyed also closely matched those in the 2006 national exit poll. If anything, the CCES respondents claimed they were more "independent" than those in the exit poll.
The CCES survey asked about 14 national issues: the war in Iraq (the invasion and the troops), abortion (and partial birth abortion), stem cell research, global warming, health insurance, immigration, the minimum wage, liberalism and conservatism, same-sex marriage, privatizing Social Security, affirmative action, and capital gains taxes. Not surprisingly, some of the largest differences between Democrats and Republicans were over the Iraq war. Fully 85 percent of those who voted for Democratic House candidates felt that it had been a mistake to invade Iraq, compared with only 18 percent of voters who cast ballots for Republicans.
When we combined voters' answers to the 14 issue questions to form a liberal-conservative scale (answers were divided into five equivalent categories based on overall liberalism vs. conservatism), 86 percent of Democratic voters were on the liberal side of the scale while 80 percent of Republican voters were on the conservative side. Only 10 percent of all voters were in the center. The visual representation of the nation's voters isn't a nicely shaped bell, with most voters in the moderate middle. It's a sharp V.
The evidence from this survey isn't surprising; nor are the findings new. For the past three decades, the major parties and the electorate have grown more divided -- in what they think, where they live and how they vote. It may be comforting to believe our problems could be solved if only those vile politicians in Washington would learn to get along. The source of the country's division, however, is nestled much closer to home.
One explanation for all this is that politicians are acting against the will of their compromise-loving constituents. Another is that Republicans and Democrats are simply being good representatives. We think the evidence supports the second interpretation.
The Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) surveyed more than 24,000 Americans who voted in 2006. The Internet-based survey compiled by researchers at 30 universities produced a sample that almost perfectly matched the national House election results: 54 percent of the respondents reported voting for a Democrat, while 46 percent said they voted for a Republican. The demographic characteristics of the voters surveyed also closely matched those in the 2006 national exit poll. If anything, the CCES respondents claimed they were more "independent" than those in the exit poll.
The CCES survey asked about 14 national issues: the war in Iraq (the invasion and the troops), abortion (and partial birth abortion), stem cell research, global warming, health insurance, immigration, the minimum wage, liberalism and conservatism, same-sex marriage, privatizing Social Security, affirmative action, and capital gains taxes. Not surprisingly, some of the largest differences between Democrats and Republicans were over the Iraq war. Fully 85 percent of those who voted for Democratic House candidates felt that it had been a mistake to invade Iraq, compared with only 18 percent of voters who cast ballots for Republicans.
When we combined voters' answers to the 14 issue questions to form a liberal-conservative scale (answers were divided into five equivalent categories based on overall liberalism vs. conservatism), 86 percent of Democratic voters were on the liberal side of the scale while 80 percent of Republican voters were on the conservative side. Only 10 percent of all voters were in the center. The visual representation of the nation's voters isn't a nicely shaped bell, with most voters in the moderate middle. It's a sharp V.
The evidence from this survey isn't surprising; nor are the findings new. For the past three decades, the major parties and the electorate have grown more divided -- in what they think, where they live and how they vote. It may be comforting to believe our problems could be solved if only those vile politicians in Washington would learn to get along. The source of the country's division, however, is nestled much closer to home.
Blog Feeds
06-25 01:30 PM
There is no question that the current economic malaise is a major factor in the current demand being short of the H-1B supply. (As of June 18, 2010, 22,900 regular cap petitions and 9,700 master�s degree exemption petitions have been received by USCIS). But, as reported in one of the authors� previous blogs, the state of our economy is but one of the reasons for the decrease in H-1B usage. Perhaps another reason is an employer�s ability to make use of a relatively recent DHS rule which permits an F-1 visa holder working pursuant to OPT to extend such OPT...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/06/considering-signing-up-for-everify-in-lieu-of-filing-an-h1b-for-an-opt.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/06/considering-signing-up-for-everify-in-lieu-of-filing-an-h1b-for-an-opt.html)
Nole2007
07-02 03:47 PM
My situation is tricky here. I would really appreciate any inputs.
My six years validity for H-1 B will be complete in Mid Dec 2007. I filed my Labor on March 5th in Atlanta. As you know the ATLANTA center is really really slow and I am still waiting on my Labor approval decision. I thought of applying 140 through Premium Processing. Now USCIS suspended premium processing for 140s. My question is:
Whay will be my situation if my Labor gets approved and 140 is pending as of dec 2007 as the LC is filed with less than 365 days remaining on H1 validity? Will I be out of status or can I apply for 7th year extension.
Please guide me through the process and any scenarios. Thank you in advance.
My six years validity for H-1 B will be complete in Mid Dec 2007. I filed my Labor on March 5th in Atlanta. As you know the ATLANTA center is really really slow and I am still waiting on my Labor approval decision. I thought of applying 140 through Premium Processing. Now USCIS suspended premium processing for 140s. My question is:
Whay will be my situation if my Labor gets approved and 140 is pending as of dec 2007 as the LC is filed with less than 365 days remaining on H1 validity? Will I be out of status or can I apply for 7th year extension.
Please guide me through the process and any scenarios. Thank you in advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment