maheshf
10-13 02:37 PM
I am in an interesting situation, my 485 is pending (PD June 22, 2006) and wondering if I should accept a position offered by my original GC employer, special when my PD is so close ( May take another 6-8 month).
I was part of company lets say X, a join venture between A&B. X applied for my GC 140 and 485 when I was with them. Then that company was split and 10% employee went to A and other 90% to B. I was part of 10% that went to A and did AC21 to port my case. It was considered as new company. Now my Old manager who moved to company B is offering a Job with significant promotion. Since X was technical acquired by B and X was my original employer, is it a win win situation to move or I stay put and wait for PD to become current before moving? job profile is goign to be same.
I was part of company lets say X, a join venture between A&B. X applied for my GC 140 and 485 when I was with them. Then that company was split and 10% employee went to A and other 90% to B. I was part of 10% that went to A and did AC21 to port my case. It was considered as new company. Now my Old manager who moved to company B is offering a Job with significant promotion. Since X was technical acquired by B and X was my original employer, is it a win win situation to move or I stay put and wait for PD to become current before moving? job profile is goign to be same.
wallpaper Bill Johnson (Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2) and Joe
martinvisalaw
08-07 12:20 PM
I have H 1B VISA but never went to USA....
1) now if i want to go there... will there be any problem
2) if I want to apply for another VISA work or Tourist... will i get?
You should not have a problem getting a different visa to come to the US to work or visit, assuming you qualify for the new status. It's not unusual for someone to get a visa that they never use.
1) now if i want to go there... will there be any problem
2) if I want to apply for another VISA work or Tourist... will i get?
You should not have a problem getting a different visa to come to the US to work or visit, assuming you qualify for the new status. It's not unusual for someone to get a visa that they never use.
coolhunk897
07-21 02:00 PM
I have applied for OPT application (applied first time) in second week of May @ Vermont Service Center.
In last week of June, my employer filed H1B visa via premium processing and it gets approved within a week. H1B start date is Dec 1, 2010.
Last week, I received RFE for my OPT application stating that my status has changed to H1B. Please provide approval receipt. I have sent the approval receipt to USCIS. Current online status of OPT application shows that USCIS office received requested documents and my case is pending.
1. Will it affect my OPT application?
2. My original joining date is already postponed by 2 weeks. Still I am waiting for OPT card. Should I request expedite processing of my OPT application? or should I wait?
Please let me know. Thanks.
In last week of June, my employer filed H1B visa via premium processing and it gets approved within a week. H1B start date is Dec 1, 2010.
Last week, I received RFE for my OPT application stating that my status has changed to H1B. Please provide approval receipt. I have sent the approval receipt to USCIS. Current online status of OPT application shows that USCIS office received requested documents and my case is pending.
1. Will it affect my OPT application?
2. My original joining date is already postponed by 2 weeks. Still I am waiting for OPT card. Should I request expedite processing of my OPT application? or should I wait?
Please let me know. Thanks.
2011 Texas Chainsaw Massacre
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..
more...
Macaca
02-17 04:52 PM
Bill
STRIVE Act H.R. 1645 (http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/STRIVE_Act_of_2007.pdf)
Media
Navigating immigration passage (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/washingtonbureau/article_1583663.php): U.S. legislators discuss what a successful immigration bill needs
STRIVE Act H.R. 1645 (http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/STRIVE_Act_of_2007.pdf)
Media
Navigating immigration passage (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/washingtonbureau/article_1583663.php): U.S. legislators discuss what a successful immigration bill needs
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
more...
vinay.shah73
10-24 02:59 AM
Forgot to mention that my I-140 was also approved in Jan 2007. This was not a concurrent filing. I filed I-485 after getting I-140 approved.
2010 Texas Chainsaw Massacre House
Blog Feeds
10-15 12:00 PM
I'm back from Spain and as you can see from the flurry of posts from last night and this morning, I'm catching up on some of the items I wanted to note in the blog. Some of you commented about today's Immigrants of the Day already, but it's worth recognizing them in a separate post. Chinese-born Charles Kao was recognized for his contributions to the development of fiber optic technology. He has worked in academia and in the private sector over the years including working at Yale and ITT Corporation. Canadian-born Willard Boyle was cited for "the invention of an...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/immigrants-of-the-day-charles-kao-and-william-boyle-2009-nobel-laureates-in-physics.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/immigrants-of-the-day-charles-kao-and-william-boyle-2009-nobel-laureates-in-physics.html)
more...
snathan
07-14 06:14 PM
I filed my I-485 and I-140 together in July 2007 using substitute labor (priority date) in Eb3 category.
I have Master degree, so can I change my category from EB3 to EB2 and keep the same priority date?
Thanks in advance and any help would be great.
No, you can not. there are lot more factors than your qualification.
I have Master degree, so can I change my category from EB3 to EB2 and keep the same priority date?
Thanks in advance and any help would be great.
No, you can not. there are lot more factors than your qualification.
hair Texas Chainsaw Massacre House
Blog Feeds
01-22 03:00 PM
The week's news dealt a body-blow to the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform, as if the movement to fix our broken immigration laws were blind-sided in a collision with a former pinup driving a pickup -- which it was. With the election of new Massachusetts Senator, Scott Brown, to take the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, the godfather of more humane and just immigration laws, supporters of CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) are swallowing their sadness and putting on their game faces, saying there's still no stopping the CIR train from arriving at its destination. It's hard to maintain optimism,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/01/my-entry-1.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/01/my-entry-1.html)
more...
krn2010
02-23 11:17 AM
I am currently on H1B with a temp status (B1) and in-between jobs. My partner is in the process of becoming a US citizen. He has had his Green Card for years and obtained it through his ex-spouse's job while they were still married. He has been divorced for about a year now and started the citizenship application process a couple of months ago. We are thinking of getting married after he gets his citizenship. My question is: does it matter if we get married before or after he obtains his citizenship? We heard rumors that a previous marriage might be a factor in whether I will be able to obtain a Green Card. Thank you very much in advance for your help!
hot Texas Chainsaw Massacre
nashim
08-07 10:06 AM
Problem is with over visa time stay not for not using
more...
house The guy walks into the house
conchshell
11-07 10:30 AM
This is what is recommended to new President Elect by on one of his advisor:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/john-doerrs-advice-for-barack-obama-hire-bill-joy/
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/john-doerrs-advice-for-barack-obama-hire-bill-joy/
tattoo The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
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
more...
pictures Texas.ChainSaw.Massacre.1974.
Hong12
02-17 12:21 AM
I just got my H1 visa. As my understanding that they will stamp my passport at the port of entry, I wonder if they will keep my current I-797 at the port of entry (I already have the H1 stamp in my passport). Pls advise. Also, I don�t have the bottom portion of the I-94 on I-797 since I am currently in Malaysia . Would this be a problem? Please also advise if they will issue me the new I-94 at the port of entry. Anybody pls help. Thank you very much.
dresses Review of The Texas Chainsaw
tom
07-02 01:17 PM
.
more...
makeup Texas Chainsaw Massacre
svr_76
12-15 08:17 PM
All this means is that USCIS is now working to gather data for the 100s of FOIA requests send in the past week for EB3, EB2 data by country by year etc... :-)
Relax take it softly..
Relax take it softly..
girlfriend Texas Chainsaw Massacre
smartboy75
11-09 06:02 PM
You can file I-485 only when your PD is current. There is no connection between filing for I-485 and I-140 approval.
hairstyles Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2,
Blog Feeds
10-26 11:52 PM
Regular readers of this blog know that I get upset easily when I hear about how anti-immigration policies negatively impact military families. Soldiers who put their lives on the line to preserve the American way of life deserve better. The Los Angeles Times writes about Frances Barrios, the wife of US Army Spc. Jack Barrios, a soldier just back from Iraq. The Guatemalan-born Frances is facing deportation because she entered the US illegally. She came when she was just six years old. Frances and Jack have a one year old daughter and a three year old son. Jack is suffering...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/its-about-respecting-the-american-soldier.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/its-about-respecting-the-american-soldier.html)
Nao
03-23 12:18 AM
Hello.
I will be needing a new re-entry permit(i-131) while renewing my green card and i was wondering if it was possible.
I am going to study back in my home country for 4yrs.
first 2yrs(2010-2012), i am going back with reentry permit.
after 2yrs(2012), i am going back to USA for 6months to renew my green card(going to expire in 2012) and reapply for a new reentry permit.
If i wont have time to get my new green card, i am possibly thinking of going back to my home country for 5 months and going back to USA for 2 wks (to retain green card status) and again, going back to my homecountry for 3 months.
Would going back and forth to my homecountry and USA will affect me from losing my green card?
Any advise will be helpful. Thank you!
I will be needing a new re-entry permit(i-131) while renewing my green card and i was wondering if it was possible.
I am going to study back in my home country for 4yrs.
first 2yrs(2010-2012), i am going back with reentry permit.
after 2yrs(2012), i am going back to USA for 6months to renew my green card(going to expire in 2012) and reapply for a new reentry permit.
If i wont have time to get my new green card, i am possibly thinking of going back to my home country for 5 months and going back to USA for 2 wks (to retain green card status) and again, going back to my homecountry for 3 months.
Would going back and forth to my homecountry and USA will affect me from losing my green card?
Any advise will be helpful. Thank you!
pdakwala
03-18 01:28 PM
Hello everyone,
This week because of recess all the senators will be in your home town. From March 27 things will move very fast. This is the last chance we all have to meet the senators since they are in their hometown. So no matter which bill comes to the floor, in the last week of March or the first week of April it is very important that we do following things:
1. During congressional recess contact Senators offices for meetings.
2. Call our Senators in their local office and talk to them on phone.
3. Send fax, letters and emails.
Please keep checking WWW.IMMIGRATIONVOICE.ORG regularly since new materials will be posted frequently. Whenever and wherever you get a chance, please convey your senators that Legal immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.
This week because of recess all the senators will be in your home town. From March 27 things will move very fast. This is the last chance we all have to meet the senators since they are in their hometown. So no matter which bill comes to the floor, in the last week of March or the first week of April it is very important that we do following things:
1. During congressional recess contact Senators offices for meetings.
2. Call our Senators in their local office and talk to them on phone.
3. Send fax, letters and emails.
Please keep checking WWW.IMMIGRATIONVOICE.ORG regularly since new materials will be posted frequently. Whenever and wherever you get a chance, please convey your senators that Legal immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.
No comments:
Post a Comment