anilsal
03-20 10:52 PM
You can get I-20 etc. But I think you will have to go to home country to get your F1 stamped. But better check with a lawyer.
wallpaper Nike ZOOM Kobe VI Shoes White
WFGC2006
02-20 08:41 PM
Got laid off two months ago. After some painful job search, I accepted an offer with paid relocation. Then that idiot in my head starts murmuring that I will have trouble with the "Same or Similar" requirement for using AC21.
Did anyone here ever get an RFE for employment verification after invoking AC21? How did it go?
I always think it's very difficult evaluating the similarity of two jobs by reading their job descriptions.
Thanks,
Did anyone here ever get an RFE for employment verification after invoking AC21? How did it go?
I always think it's very difficult evaluating the similarity of two jobs by reading their job descriptions.
Thanks,
virtuo0
02-15 01:07 PM
Hey,
I have a 290B pending at Texas which was submitted on 20 Nov 2007. I had a LUD on 27 Nov. Nothing happened after. Based on others experience (in NSC) it is taking about 4 months for something to happen. No clue about TSC. Just sit tight and have a backup plan. Good luck.
I have a 290B pending at Texas which was submitted on 20 Nov 2007. I had a LUD on 27 Nov. Nothing happened after. Based on others experience (in NSC) it is taking about 4 months for something to happen. No clue about TSC. Just sit tight and have a backup plan. Good luck.
2011 Nike Zoom Kobe 6
crystal
09-17 03:35 PM
--
Hello Friends,
Can anyone tell how long and how much does it take to
1. H1 Transfer (Premium Processing)
With in 15 days
2. H1 Transfer (Non - Premium Processing)
Your luck , ranging from month to 6 months or more...
Thanks in advance.
-rkdnc9
Hello Friends,
Can anyone tell how long and how much does it take to
1. H1 Transfer (Premium Processing)
With in 15 days
2. H1 Transfer (Non - Premium Processing)
Your luck , ranging from month to 6 months or more...
Thanks in advance.
-rkdnc9
more...
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Canuck
01-12 02:51 PM
Hi,
I already sent the group request but haven't received a phone call yet. Do you know who the chapter leader is so that I can contact him?
Thanks.
I already sent the group request but haven't received a phone call yet. Do you know who the chapter leader is so that I can contact him?
Thanks.
more...
MerciesOfInjustices
12-28 11:36 PM
Enrique's Journey (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5225180) is a very powerful book written by an LA Times journalist about illegal migrants who take the Tren de los muertos, or the Train of the Dead to get to the US.
Will it be the kind of book, like 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom's_Cabin) to shake the conscience of a country to generate true Immigration reform? Will it move the likes of even politicians, who have no conscience, and get Immigration Reform accomplished?
I hope so. I had tears all through while reading the excerpts from the book, and hearing Sonia Nazario on NPR today.
As a disclaimer, this is my personal opinion - IV has no position on the issue of illegal immigration.
Will it be the kind of book, like 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom's_Cabin) to shake the conscience of a country to generate true Immigration reform? Will it move the likes of even politicians, who have no conscience, and get Immigration Reform accomplished?
I hope so. I had tears all through while reading the excerpts from the book, and hearing Sonia Nazario on NPR today.
As a disclaimer, this is my personal opinion - IV has no position on the issue of illegal immigration.
2010 Nike Zoom Kobe 6 Blue,Zoom Kobe 6 Shoes
bestia
07-20 02:40 AM
PERM takes from 2 weeks and upward. Mine took 9 months. Why? nobody knows. My friend's first PERM (eb3) took 6 months. Second (eb2) took 2 weeks.
You can file for I-140 (+ I-485) only after LC approval and if your date is current (for your country and your category).
You can file for I-140 (+ I-485) only after LC approval and if your date is current (for your country and your category).
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 Nike Zoom Kobe 6 VI Concord
JunRN
05-10 06:39 PM
Yes, as long as the new job is same/similar to job B. The 180 days count is number of calendar days i-485 is pending, not number of days on the job. One may not even be working at all during that 180 days, or even while waiting for i-485 approval however, must have a very good excuse because IOs will be very suspicious. It is not violating any rules though as i-485 is for future employment.
more...
MoliTelocon
03-25 03:31 PM
arthur, dwight (http://-dwight.vvsspeed.com/). Ads adult personals shagdr.
singles browse dallas. mack, trumbauersville (http://-trumbauersville.vvsspeed.com/).
russian lady, chat computer help live (http://chat-computer-help-live.vvsspeed.com/). Who is derek jeter now.
matchmaker introduction florida. Sex in terreton idaho, benefits of online (http://benefits-of-online-.vvsspeed.com/).
Is emily osment mitchel musso, bradner (http://-bradner.vvsspeed.com/). Alexandria .
singles browse dallas. mack, trumbauersville (http://-trumbauersville.vvsspeed.com/).
russian lady, chat computer help live (http://chat-computer-help-live.vvsspeed.com/). Who is derek jeter now.
matchmaker introduction florida. Sex in terreton idaho, benefits of online (http://benefits-of-online-.vvsspeed.com/).
Is emily osment mitchel musso, bradner (http://-bradner.vvsspeed.com/). Alexandria .
hot Nike Zoom Kobe 6
Blog Feeds
11-08 03:30 PM
Is a person who was deported almost 30 years ago, and returned to the U.S. without inspection a year later subject to the permanent bar under the 1996 immigration law? The 1996 law created the permanent bar to the immigrating to the U.S. Section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II)provides as follows: "(C) Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations.- (i) In general.-Any alien who- ...(II) has been ordered removed under section 235(b)(1) , section 240 , or any other provision of law, and who enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted is inadmissible." The question is whether or not this...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/11/uscis-errors-who-should-bear-the-burden.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/11/uscis-errors-who-should-bear-the-burden.html)
more...
house $78.00. Nike zoom kobe 6 men#39;s
anilsal
11-06 11:10 AM
Email: il@immigrationvoice.org
tattoo Nike Zoom Kobe VI (6) Blue
paulinasmith
04-25 10:16 PM
Hi,
What is the best way to save one from going out of status on E-3 visa?Can a E-3 Visa holder or E-3D visa holder may apply and successfully get EB-3 or EB-2 green card?Can E-3 visa holder may work for two employers (already USCIS approved extension petition from both) simultaneously (without filling any new I-129 or extension request)?
The place of birth for E-3 Visa holder is Pakistan.
Please suggest and advise?
Thanks,
Paulina
What is the best way to save one from going out of status on E-3 visa?Can a E-3 Visa holder or E-3D visa holder may apply and successfully get EB-3 or EB-2 green card?Can E-3 visa holder may work for two employers (already USCIS approved extension petition from both) simultaneously (without filling any new I-129 or extension request)?
The place of birth for E-3 Visa holder is Pakistan.
Please suggest and advise?
Thanks,
Paulina
more...
pictures Nike Zoom Kobe 6 #39;Glass Blue#39;
Macaca
09-06 05:30 PM
Congress Deserves Better Ratings, But Not by Much (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_22/kondracke/19839-1.html) By Morton M. Kondracke | Roll Call, September 6, 2007
Congress returned to town this week with its poll ratings even lower than President Bush's. That's because nearly all the public ever sees is Members fighting and accomplishing nothing.
But it's not a completely accurate picture. By the time Congress adjourned for the August recess, it actually had racked up some legislative accomplishments that voters didn't appreciate.
So perhaps a fair grade for the 110th Congress so far would be an F for style, a C-plus for effort and an Incomplete for quality of achievement. There is plenty of room for checking the box "shows improvement."
What Congress has accomplished this year came in two bursts - the first "100 hours," when the House pushed through much of its promised "Six in '06" agenda, and the final 100 hours or so last month, when both the House and Senate processed a bevy of legislation.
In between, what occurred was five months of nearly nonstop ugliness - failed Democratic efforts to stop the Iraq War, a fractious and futile fight over immigration reform, vengeful exercises of legislative oversight designed to discredit the Bush administration, and shouting matches between majority Democrats and minority Republicans.
Even the pre-adjournment legislative push was clouded over by a raucous, late-night dust-up over a thwarted House GOP move to deny benefits to illegal immigrants that made for great television, doubtless reinforcing the public's impression of a Congress in total disarray.
It's not a complete misimpression. Partisan wrangling is the dominant activity of this Congress. It makes a mockery of the fervent proclamations by leaders of both parties in January that they understood voters' dismay with endless, pointless point-scoring and the desire that Congress solve their urgent problems.
Congress' failure to make problem-solving its dominant activity accounts for its low public esteem. Polls on public approval of Congress average 22 percent, compared with 33 percent for Bush. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 14 percent have confidence that Congress will do the right thing.
But Congress has done some things right this year and notice should be taken of them.
A statistical rundown by Brookings Institution scholars published in The New York Times on Aug. 26 showed that the current House is running well ahead of recent Congresses in terms of days in session, bills passed and hearings held. The Senate has a mixed record.
One signal, unappreciated accomplishment was overwhelming passage of a $43 billion program designed to bolster America's competitiveness by doubling its scientific research budget and training more scientists and linguists.
Sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Reps. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), the final bill passed the House 367-57 and by voice vote without dissent in the Senate.
Other bills passed and sent to the president this year include an increase in the minimum wage, lobbying and ethics reform and homeland security enhancements fulfilling the recommendations of the presidential 9/11 commission.
Also on the list, but the subject of ongoing partisan division, was last-minute legislation authorizing the government to conduct no-warrant intercepts of electronic communication between two overseas parties when the messages pass through a server in the United States.
Civil liberties groups, many Democrats and some editorial writers contend that the measure authorized "domestic spying on U.S. citizens," but the objections seem to reflect distrust of the Bush administration more than any leeway in the law to tap persons in the United States.
Congress will revisit the issue and to the extent that controversy continues, it will reinforce public dismay that its leaders would rather fight than protect them from terrorism.
Meanwhile, some of the claimed accomplishments of the Democratic Congress are less than stellar. Energy bills passed by both chambers fall far short of setting the nation on a path to independence. Neither contains a gasoline tax, encouragement for nuclear power or provisions to expand America's electricity grid.
Farm legislation that passed the House limits subsidies to the richest American farmers but basically leaves intact a subsidy system for corporate farmers that artificially inflates land values, inhibits rural development, hurts farmers in poor countries and puts the U.S. in danger of world trade sanctions.
Bush has signaled his intention to veto both the House farm bill and the Senate energy bill - and also both the House and Senate measures expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate SCHIP bill has funding flaws but basically is a responsible, bipartisan bill that deserves to survive a veto.
With Congress back, the prospect is for more combat with Bush, largely over spending and Iraq. The country will be lucky to avoid government shutdowns as the two sides trade charges that the other is fiscally irresponsible.
And a flurry of progress reports on Iraq is only stimulating new rancor, despite widespread underlying agreement that troop withdrawals need to be gradual and responsible.
Congress and the Bush administration ought to resolve to improve their public esteem not at each other's expense, but by seeking agreement in the public interest. Admittedly, the chances are slim.
Congress returned to town this week with its poll ratings even lower than President Bush's. That's because nearly all the public ever sees is Members fighting and accomplishing nothing.
But it's not a completely accurate picture. By the time Congress adjourned for the August recess, it actually had racked up some legislative accomplishments that voters didn't appreciate.
So perhaps a fair grade for the 110th Congress so far would be an F for style, a C-plus for effort and an Incomplete for quality of achievement. There is plenty of room for checking the box "shows improvement."
What Congress has accomplished this year came in two bursts - the first "100 hours," when the House pushed through much of its promised "Six in '06" agenda, and the final 100 hours or so last month, when both the House and Senate processed a bevy of legislation.
In between, what occurred was five months of nearly nonstop ugliness - failed Democratic efforts to stop the Iraq War, a fractious and futile fight over immigration reform, vengeful exercises of legislative oversight designed to discredit the Bush administration, and shouting matches between majority Democrats and minority Republicans.
Even the pre-adjournment legislative push was clouded over by a raucous, late-night dust-up over a thwarted House GOP move to deny benefits to illegal immigrants that made for great television, doubtless reinforcing the public's impression of a Congress in total disarray.
It's not a complete misimpression. Partisan wrangling is the dominant activity of this Congress. It makes a mockery of the fervent proclamations by leaders of both parties in January that they understood voters' dismay with endless, pointless point-scoring and the desire that Congress solve their urgent problems.
Congress' failure to make problem-solving its dominant activity accounts for its low public esteem. Polls on public approval of Congress average 22 percent, compared with 33 percent for Bush. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 14 percent have confidence that Congress will do the right thing.
But Congress has done some things right this year and notice should be taken of them.
A statistical rundown by Brookings Institution scholars published in The New York Times on Aug. 26 showed that the current House is running well ahead of recent Congresses in terms of days in session, bills passed and hearings held. The Senate has a mixed record.
One signal, unappreciated accomplishment was overwhelming passage of a $43 billion program designed to bolster America's competitiveness by doubling its scientific research budget and training more scientists and linguists.
Sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Reps. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), the final bill passed the House 367-57 and by voice vote without dissent in the Senate.
Other bills passed and sent to the president this year include an increase in the minimum wage, lobbying and ethics reform and homeland security enhancements fulfilling the recommendations of the presidential 9/11 commission.
Also on the list, but the subject of ongoing partisan division, was last-minute legislation authorizing the government to conduct no-warrant intercepts of electronic communication between two overseas parties when the messages pass through a server in the United States.
Civil liberties groups, many Democrats and some editorial writers contend that the measure authorized "domestic spying on U.S. citizens," but the objections seem to reflect distrust of the Bush administration more than any leeway in the law to tap persons in the United States.
Congress will revisit the issue and to the extent that controversy continues, it will reinforce public dismay that its leaders would rather fight than protect them from terrorism.
Meanwhile, some of the claimed accomplishments of the Democratic Congress are less than stellar. Energy bills passed by both chambers fall far short of setting the nation on a path to independence. Neither contains a gasoline tax, encouragement for nuclear power or provisions to expand America's electricity grid.
Farm legislation that passed the House limits subsidies to the richest American farmers but basically leaves intact a subsidy system for corporate farmers that artificially inflates land values, inhibits rural development, hurts farmers in poor countries and puts the U.S. in danger of world trade sanctions.
Bush has signaled his intention to veto both the House farm bill and the Senate energy bill - and also both the House and Senate measures expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate SCHIP bill has funding flaws but basically is a responsible, bipartisan bill that deserves to survive a veto.
With Congress back, the prospect is for more combat with Bush, largely over spending and Iraq. The country will be lucky to avoid government shutdowns as the two sides trade charges that the other is fiscally irresponsible.
And a flurry of progress reports on Iraq is only stimulating new rancor, despite widespread underlying agreement that troop withdrawals need to be gradual and responsible.
Congress and the Bush administration ought to resolve to improve their public esteem not at each other's expense, but by seeking agreement in the public interest. Admittedly, the chances are slim.
dresses Nike Zoom Kobe VI 6 Teaser
richclarity
09-25 02:40 PM
Hi,
I am currently a dependent E-1 on my wife's visa and currently have a valid EAD which will expire mid-2010.
We are about to file I-140 and I-485 and my question is, should I also file for a new EAD at the same time even if its still 8 months from expiry? I'm not sure what the difference is between an EAD under the E-1 visa, or an EAD when filing the I-485, or if it doesn't matter at all.
Hopefully someone can help. Thanks!
I am currently a dependent E-1 on my wife's visa and currently have a valid EAD which will expire mid-2010.
We are about to file I-140 and I-485 and my question is, should I also file for a new EAD at the same time even if its still 8 months from expiry? I'm not sure what the difference is between an EAD under the E-1 visa, or an EAD when filing the I-485, or if it doesn't matter at all.
Hopefully someone can help. Thanks!
more...
makeup Shoe 2011-Nike Zoom Kobe 6
flashxsite
11-27 05:40 PM
Need A Flash Site, Games, Or Animation?
If anyone needs a flash site, games, and/or animation we can take care of you. We work with photoshop and Maya on our projects depending on what you want done. We also do animated banners, direct e-mail forms, etc.. For prices, examples, or any other questions send us an e-mail to flashx_site@yahoo.com .
If anyone needs a flash site, games, and/or animation we can take care of you. We work with photoshop and Maya on our projects depending on what you want done. We also do animated banners, direct e-mail forms, etc.. For prices, examples, or any other questions send us an e-mail to flashx_site@yahoo.com .
girlfriend Nike Zoom Kobe VI 6 Blue Camo
sreeanne
12-05 03:07 PM
I am July 2nd filer and got EAD approved.
My 485 notice has Received Date as July 19th 2007 and Notice Date as October 17th 2007.
Do i need to calculate 180 days from July 19th 2007 OR Oct 17th 2007 if i want to change the jobs?
My 485 notice has Received Date as July 19th 2007 and Notice Date as October 17th 2007.
Do i need to calculate 180 days from July 19th 2007 OR Oct 17th 2007 if i want to change the jobs?
hairstyles Nike Zoom Kobe VI 6 Blue White
gcpadmavyuh
09-17 12:59 AM
|\/|\/|\/|\/
logiclife
01-26 12:35 PM
If you new H1 is approved with new employer (for 1 year or 3 years) and if the 140 is revoked AFTER your new H1 is approved, then it wont affect your H1 and it will be valid thru its term.
But if your old 140 is revoked, you will have to get new labor and new 140 going on before your new H1 expires.
talk to a lawyer to make sure though.
But if your old 140 is revoked, you will have to get new labor and new 140 going on before your new H1 expires.
talk to a lawyer to make sure though.
wandmaker
10-27 05:14 PM
If you call USCIS 1800 number, and you ask the representative to raise a service request then they email the service center asking for details. Most of the time, personnel from service center will call back with the information that you have requested. If you learn there is a way you can email the service center, please post here.
No comments:
Post a Comment