rkumar18
06-03 07:07 PM
Can someone please advise if I can believe this story?
wallpaper used cars for sale by owner in
Blog Feeds
04-26 11:30 AM
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) must be rolling in his grave. The conservative Republican senator from Arizona ran for President in 1964 on a platform condemning "Big Government". As a kid, I read Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" and came away with a strong conviction that America was founded on the principle of individual freedom, and that no matter what the perceived threat was, internal or external, American citizens should beware of "trusting the government" rather than upholding our rights as individuals. Today, the citizens of the State of Arizona are justifiably upset about the violence caused by Mexican drug cartels...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/04/big-government-comes-to-arizona.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/04/big-government-comes-to-arizona.html)
rkumar18
06-03 05:34 PM
Hi All,
I just called USCIS using the POJ method to check on my I485 status which is current for June (EB2 India PD is 3/20/04).
IO said a visa needs to be ordered for the file and it will be done in the next quarter i.e, July 08.She also said the file will not be assigned to the IO unless the visa is ordered??
Does this mean that all the visas for EB2 have been used for this quarter? Also, not sure why the file wont be worked on until the visa is ordered...which contradicts the pre-adjudication theory.
Thanks
I just called USCIS using the POJ method to check on my I485 status which is current for June (EB2 India PD is 3/20/04).
IO said a visa needs to be ordered for the file and it will be done in the next quarter i.e, July 08.She also said the file will not be assigned to the IO unless the visa is ordered??
Does this mean that all the visas for EB2 have been used for this quarter? Also, not sure why the file wont be worked on until the visa is ordered...which contradicts the pre-adjudication theory.
Thanks
2011 For Sale By Owner Car, Bike,
desitechie
01-08 06:21 PM
I94 date doesnt matter for entry on AP as parolee status.
Just continue on H1 or EAD whichever you have been using and keep extending AP too for travel.
Just continue on H1 or EAD whichever you have been using and keep extending AP too for travel.
more...
WFGC2006
11-18 09:13 PM
push and pull, and i finally decided to exercise my AC21 rights.....
AC21 pioneers, any recommendations on picking lawyers around NYC? specifically those that are fairly responsive and charge a fair price on all the procedures / docs that come with maintaining AOS, including a possible AC21 notification letter, renewing EAD/APs....
thank you for any guidances.
AC21 pioneers, any recommendations on picking lawyers around NYC? specifically those that are fairly responsive and charge a fair price on all the procedures / docs that come with maintaining AOS, including a possible AC21 notification letter, renewing EAD/APs....
thank you for any guidances.
Blog Feeds
01-04 08:10 AM
Perhaps there is a chance we'll see some action on the DREAM Act in 2011 albeit with some major tough to accept changes. The key areas likely to change are the education requirement (mandating actually receiving a degree versus simply attending school), the ability to sponsor relatives down the road when DREAM Act finally become citizens (at least 13 years out) and criminal bars on applying.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/anti-immigration-center-for-immigration-studies-suggests-willingness-to-compromise-on-dream-act.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/01/anti-immigration-center-for-immigration-studies-suggests-willingness-to-compromise-on-dream-act.html)
more...
Blog Feeds
08-05 08:00 AM
Wingnut Alan Keyes says repealing the 14th Amendment is going too far. And lest wingnut readers of this blog (you know who you are) wave public opinion polls that seem to support this, I would remind you that the whole point of enshrining civil rights protections in the Constitution is precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If you would have put segregation up for a vote in my part of the world back in the 1950s, you would have found overwhelming support. The judge who tossed out the Proposition 8 referendum on same sex marriages in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/another-shark-jumping-sign.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/another-shark-jumping-sign.html)
2010 Cars for sale by owner nj
Blog Feeds
02-19 07:00 PM
Pro-immigration advocates can come from the conservative movement just as they can come from the liberal camp. And just as there is an internal battle on the left (labor protectionists often seize on anti-immigration positions), there is also a battle on the right between the pro-business, small government advocates and the xenophobic America first crowd who usually couch their arguments in terms of law and order (though if you dig a little, you'll find that these folks are usually against liberalizing rules to make legal immigration easier). Right wing Talkradionews.com reports on efforts by a Latino group to attract conservative...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/conservatives-gearing-up-for-civil-war-over-immigration.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/conservatives-gearing-up-for-civil-war-over-immigration.html)
more...
rick_rajvanshi
11-12 11:54 AM
As bad as it can get for some immigrants.
Money issues may have contributed to murder-suicide | KATU.com - News, Weather and Sports - Portland, Oregon | News (http://www.katu.com/news/69805837.html)
please pray for the departed souls.
Money issues may have contributed to murder-suicide | KATU.com - News, Weather and Sports - Portland, Oregon | News (http://www.katu.com/news/69805837.html)
please pray for the departed souls.
hair find used cars for sale by
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.
more...
godbless
06-20 12:03 PM
Folks, This thread is to track the I 485 approvals. Please mention your PD and RD for I 485 here. Mine is with a priority date of 4/3/2002 and RD of 12/29/2004. Still waiting while many others with a later PD have already got their GCs recently.
hot Cars for sale by owner in nj
nkavjs
10-31 10:01 AM
With a newborn at home, this was a crucial decision for me, if I used EAD (with same employer) I could work minimum hours like 10-20 hours a week. I just wanted to be sure that at the time of GC processing, my less hours worked shd not be taken as an objection.
Thanks again :)
Thanks again :)
more...
house Used cars for sale by owner
manderson
03-14 08:27 PM
so what are the EB provisions that will affect us?
tattoo For Sale 1998 Owner Type Jeep
johnv
08-26 04:49 PM
I got my H1 approved in Oct 2004 and it was from Oct 2004 - Oct 2007. I used only 6 months of H1 and later went on TN (work visa for Canadian citizens) and remained in US working on TN for 4 years. I was in US all these years. Now even the earlier H1 approval duration is over, Can I apply for H1 with another employer using the old 2004 H1 quota cap or it has to be under new 2009 cap? Thanks in advance.
more...
pictures Find cars for sale by owner
vali
03-30 07:36 AM
I'm in the 8th year of H1-B, BEC priority date 04/2001, just got a notice that the case was closed ?? and the lawyer is working to reopen the case.
I have now a very good opportunity to work for another company, huge pay and benefits, a lot of pressure from this company to work for them.
Pls who can answer 2 small questions:
1. Do I have a chance to work for this company?
2. It makes a difference if I'm currently in NJ and this new company is in Utah - thinking that maybe they are not so many applicants in that state? Just for the LC processing speed?
Thanks a lot.
I have now a very good opportunity to work for another company, huge pay and benefits, a lot of pressure from this company to work for them.
Pls who can answer 2 small questions:
1. Do I have a chance to work for this company?
2. It makes a difference if I'm currently in NJ and this new company is in Utah - thinking that maybe they are not so many applicants in that state? Just for the LC processing speed?
Thanks a lot.
dresses local cars for sale by owner
suryamnb
12-18 02:15 PM
Hi friends,
Today I had a LUD on my old I-129 (approved in Aug 2005). The online status say: �On August 29, 2007, the post office returned our last written notice on this case as undeliverable. This can have serious effects on the processing of this case. Please call 1-800-375-5283 to update the mailing address so this notice can be re-sent.�
I'm no more working for this employer and I�ve changed to a new employer a year ago. What does this status mean?Any ideas?
Does this cause any problem to my current GC process which was sponsored by current employer?
Today I had a LUD on my old I-129 (approved in Aug 2005). The online status say: �On August 29, 2007, the post office returned our last written notice on this case as undeliverable. This can have serious effects on the processing of this case. Please call 1-800-375-5283 to update the mailing address so this notice can be re-sent.�
I'm no more working for this employer and I�ve changed to a new employer a year ago. What does this status mean?Any ideas?
Does this cause any problem to my current GC process which was sponsored by current employer?
more...
makeup local used cars for sale by
patiently_waiting
09-21 11:39 PM
How do we identify EB3 or EB2 category in approved I-140 ?
In Section , it was written as "Sec. 203 (b) (3) (A) (i) or (ii) ".
Not able to figure it out.
Thanks
In Section , it was written as "Sec. 203 (b) (3) (A) (i) or (ii) ".
Not able to figure it out.
Thanks
girlfriend car for sale buy owner
willIWill
11-17 07:31 PM
The latest processing times have been updated but not the Processing Trend Dashboard.
I believed after the USCIS Site re-design they were going to be prompt with these updates.
What is Strange in that is, the September data is showing as Zero ?!!
USCIS Processing Times (https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplay.do)
USCIS National Processing Volumes and Trends. (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/)
I believed after the USCIS Site re-design they were going to be prompt with these updates.
What is Strange in that is, the September data is showing as Zero ?!!
USCIS Processing Times (https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplay.do)
USCIS National Processing Volumes and Trends. (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/)
hairstyles Used cars for sale by owner in
joreal
08-25 04:23 PM
hi,
My company filed for H1B Extension as it is expiring in november 2009. How much time will it take to get the H1B extension approved ? Once i get H1B extension(probably for 1 year or 3 years), then should i go for H1B stamping, if so, i have to go to India for H1B Stamping. Let me know...
Thanks in advance....:)
My company filed for H1B Extension as it is expiring in november 2009. How much time will it take to get the H1B extension approved ? Once i get H1B extension(probably for 1 year or 3 years), then should i go for H1B stamping, if so, i have to go to India for H1B Stamping. Let me know...
Thanks in advance....:)
saro28
10-22 08:44 AM
You don't need a transit visa for London. Couple of days ago my friend went via London with AP and expired visa on passport.
vikasgarg24
07-21 04:04 PM
I am a US Citizen and will be filing a petition (i 130) to bring my mother over on a greencard.
Recently on her visit to the US on a visitor visa she was marked as NO AOS/COS/EOS on her I - 94
and she left by the date specified on her i - 94.
My question is will it have any effect on her GC petition and what is the current wait time for consular processing on an i-130 petition
Recently on her visit to the US on a visitor visa she was marked as NO AOS/COS/EOS on her I - 94
and she left by the date specified on her i - 94.
My question is will it have any effect on her GC petition and what is the current wait time for consular processing on an i-130 petition
No comments:
Post a Comment