ronhira
04-27 09:13 AM
do not try to contact aliens..... Stephen Hawking says Alien Contact Could Be Risky
Stephen Hawking: Alien Contact Could Be Risky - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Space/stephen-hawking-alien-contact-risky/story?id=10478157)
no problem, arizona state congress have a response plan to tackle all aliens. arizona just passed a bill to handle aliens - arrest everyone who don't look like us.... lets now look for the space ships....
Stephen Hawking: Alien Contact Could Be Risky - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Space/stephen-hawking-alien-contact-risky/story?id=10478157)
no problem, arizona state congress have a response plan to tackle all aliens. arizona just passed a bill to handle aliens - arrest everyone who don't look like us.... lets now look for the space ships....
wallpaper Hairstyles Brides with
njdude26
07-03 08:43 AM
My wife was working for a company before. They had filed for her GC. She has an approved I140. She had to convert to H4 because of some legal reasons and could not continue to work for the company. Now she has a valid H4.
She has already been here 7 years on her old H1. Now can she file for a H4-H1 and get a 3 year visa based on an approved 140 ?
The lawyer says that the 3 year extension rule just states that H can be continued beyond 6 years based on approved 140 and so she can go back to a H1...
Anyone here has had a similiar experience ?
She has already been here 7 years on her old H1. Now can she file for a H4-H1 and get a 3 year visa based on an approved 140 ?
The lawyer says that the 3 year extension rule just states that H can be continued beyond 6 years based on approved 140 and so she can go back to a H1...
Anyone here has had a similiar experience ?
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
2011 wedding hairstyles, ride
roshnichowdhry
02-03 02:49 PM
Hi,
Can someone tell me a little bit about visitor visa validity dates. For eg: if my parents got a 3 month visa, is it valid from the date it is issued or from the date of entry into the US?
Thanks
Roshni
Can someone tell me a little bit about visitor visa validity dates. For eg: if my parents got a 3 month visa, is it valid from the date it is issued or from the date of entry into the US?
Thanks
Roshni
more...
sam2006
10-03 03:14 PM
PLEASE Name your POSTS Properly
lokeymd
04-01 07:37 AM
I had already gotten my USDOS approval and my USCIS approval for my J waiver. The whole process took less than a month which surprised us! But it was stated on the I-797 that I should start working for my employer within 90days from March 19, which will be June 19. The problem is my training program does not end until June 30. Even if I wait until June 19 to file for my H1B, and if I don't go for premium processing, once they approve it and retro-date it, there will be an overlap from June 19-30. Can I apply for the H1 on June 30 instead (when my J expires) but that will be more than 90 days from March 19? I will appreciate any suggestions. Thanks!
more...
coolmanasip
07-19 01:54 PM
Guys,
I submitted 485 application for me (primary) and my wife (secondary); now she is changing her job before we can get the receipt for 485 filing....she is on h1B....the new employer will file her H1B transfer..........does anyone see any issue with this????
I think its fine as her H1 status is independent of we filing 485....any thoughts?
I submitted 485 application for me (primary) and my wife (secondary); now she is changing her job before we can get the receipt for 485 filing....she is on h1B....the new employer will file her H1B transfer..........does anyone see any issue with this????
I think its fine as her H1 status is independent of we filing 485....any thoughts?
2010 indian rides hairstyles.
alien02k
03-23 09:08 PM
I am on H1B all these days and my company wants me to mandatory move to EAD. (no option here). I also had my H1B approved for an other 3 years.
1) Is it a good idea to move on EAD now.
2)Its been close to 6 years on my H1 but I still have 8 months left on the initial 6 years. Can i use the left out period on H1B later.
3)Now that I am on EAD, if i need to move my employer, can I invoke the AC21. if yes what should I do... do i just need to resign at the current place and join at the company b.
4)If I move out of my current employer,Can my employer revoke the I140, considering that its already been more than 180days since approved.
Note: I have my 485 pending and 140 approved in April 2008 and I am a July 2007 filer with a priority date of June 24th 2007.
Your responses are highly appreciated.
Thank you
1) Is it a good idea to move on EAD now.
2)Its been close to 6 years on my H1 but I still have 8 months left on the initial 6 years. Can i use the left out period on H1B later.
3)Now that I am on EAD, if i need to move my employer, can I invoke the AC21. if yes what should I do... do i just need to resign at the current place and join at the company b.
4)If I move out of my current employer,Can my employer revoke the I140, considering that its already been more than 180days since approved.
Note: I have my 485 pending and 140 approved in April 2008 and I am a July 2007 filer with a priority date of June 24th 2007.
Your responses are highly appreciated.
Thank you
more...
chris
10-10 09:36 AM
Hi giveit,
The background is easy, find a picture that you like, add it to a layer temporarily, draw over the main areas ie doors walls windows etc then go back and fil in those areas with colour, then delete the layer with the pic on.
As for the man walking its a bit more complicated, I may be able to help out, Which direction is he walking ie Diagonally, vertically,
up, down etc.
Let me know and i'll see what I can do.
The background is easy, find a picture that you like, add it to a layer temporarily, draw over the main areas ie doors walls windows etc then go back and fil in those areas with colour, then delete the layer with the pic on.
As for the man walking its a bit more complicated, I may be able to help out, Which direction is he walking ie Diagonally, vertically,
up, down etc.
Let me know and i'll see what I can do.
hair Hairstyles - Brides
sertasheep
09-23 12:25 PM
Dear IV members,
As of 23 September 2006, we have received less than 15 questions in preparation for the next call. This does not meet the critical mass of 20-25 questions for justifying a conference call.
Please follow process listed in the thread http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1267 for us to consider your questions.
Also, please spread the word around.
I am attaching a flyer for your convenience. You could request your friendly neighborhood ethnic grocer (Indian/Mexican/Chinese/Filipino and others) or video rental store, religious gathering or communal gathering place to carry these flyers in a prominent location. (You'll be surprised at the positive response you will get from such businesses- I had my reservations at first, but when I approached a temple sometime back, the temple officer appreciated the efforts made by us for such a "great cause"- his own words).
NOTE: Flyer will be available after file upload/download problems are resolved.
As of 23 September 2006, we have received less than 15 questions in preparation for the next call. This does not meet the critical mass of 20-25 questions for justifying a conference call.
Please follow process listed in the thread http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1267 for us to consider your questions.
Also, please spread the word around.
I am attaching a flyer for your convenience. You could request your friendly neighborhood ethnic grocer (Indian/Mexican/Chinese/Filipino and others) or video rental store, religious gathering or communal gathering place to carry these flyers in a prominent location. (You'll be surprised at the positive response you will get from such businesses- I had my reservations at first, but when I approached a temple sometime back, the temple officer appreciated the efforts made by us for such a "great cause"- his own words).
NOTE: Flyer will be available after file upload/download problems are resolved.
more...
Blog Feeds
05-27 08:30 AM
I've been hearing reports behind the scenes over the last few days about a growing rift in the pro-immigration movement between whether it is better to hold out for comprehensive immigration reform or switch to a strategy of pursuing significant lesser immigration measures like the DREAM Act or AgJobs. As I've indicated before, strong arguments can be made for either. Now some of those arguments are making there way in to the media such as this nugget from today's HuffPost Hill email alert: TOMORROW'S PAPERS TODAY - The Hill's Alexander Bolton on how immigration reform is straining Chuck Schumer and...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/piecemeal-versus-comprehensive.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/piecemeal-versus-comprehensive.html)
hot your ridal hair style
scmiles
09-28 07:42 PM
Hello, I am following along on the advanced tutorial for data binding with XML, and I am using Blend 3, I know the tutorial uses Blend 2. I was hoping you could help me find the "define data templates" equivalent option that is not present in Blend 3, for the step that modifies what elements from the xml data source are displayed in the listbox.
http://www.kirupa.com/blend_wpf/xml_databinding_pg3.htm
Thanks
http://www.kirupa.com/blend_wpf/xml_databinding_pg3.htm
Thanks
more...
house indian rides hairstyles.
vivache
07-27 01:02 AM
I know everyone says Interim EAD is done with. But this is from the form on the USCIS website. Any ideas?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765.pdf
Interim EAD: an EAD issued to an eligible applicant when USCIS has failed to adjudicate an application within 90 days of receipt of a properly filed EAD application or within 30 days of a properly filed initial EAD application based on an asylumapplication filed on or after January 4, 1995. The interim EAD will be granted for a period not to exceed 240 days.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765.pdf
Interim EAD: an EAD issued to an eligible applicant when USCIS has failed to adjudicate an application within 90 days of receipt of a properly filed EAD application or within 30 days of a properly filed initial EAD application based on an asylumapplication filed on or after January 4, 1995. The interim EAD will be granted for a period not to exceed 240 days.
tattoo hairstyle: Brides classic
Yas
03-24 10:42 PM
My employer was planning on sponsoring me, and paying all the filing fees, but the deal was that I was going to pay the lawyer directly for the legal fees. I just found out from a second lawyer that technically we can't do that because it will drop my salary below the prevailing wage. Is there anything I can do to get around this, and still pay the legal fees? Is it completely against the law for me to pay them or is that just an "interpretation of the law"? The other possibility is my husband could pay the fees, but I don't know if that's allowed either.
Let me know if you have any advice - we have to have everything signed by this Friday.
Let me know if you have any advice - we have to have everything signed by this Friday.
more...
pictures tattoo Bridal Hairstyles,ridal
aa_697
07-20 08:28 PM
Nik
Its ok to have permanent address on 485 application and different address on AR-11.
You can submit AR-11 for your change of address and don�t change address on 485 application.
I am saying so because I did call USCIS and confirmed this. But you better call them and ask one more time for your satisfaction
thanks
Its ok to have permanent address on 485 application and different address on AR-11.
You can submit AR-11 for your change of address and don�t change address on 485 application.
I am saying so because I did call USCIS and confirmed this. But you better call them and ask one more time for your satisfaction
thanks
dresses Bridal Hairstyles Pictures
itsmesabby
03-30 01:50 PM
Hi
I had the same case. Call up the 800 number in the reciept and find options where you can change the address on the phone. The reason I tried this was because as the # is not in the system you can't even report a problem with the case.
Now when the representative is available, tell them the issue and they will connect you to someone who can verify the status for you. The next layer rep will ask your name and address for verification and tell you the status.
Thanks.
I had the same case. Call up the 800 number in the reciept and find options where you can change the address on the phone. The reason I tried this was because as the # is not in the system you can't even report a problem with the case.
Now when the representative is available, tell them the issue and they will connect you to someone who can verify the status for you. The next layer rep will ask your name and address for verification and tell you the status.
Thanks.
more...
makeup Depending on the hairstyle
ramreddy
01-03 12:24 PM
Sir
My labor and 140 are approved. 485 is pending.
Can I go to India and come back , say just 5 months before my PD comes current.
e.g. the EB2 is now hanging at March 05 . My PD is at Oct 05. When it comes to around Aug 05 ...I will come back and start working.
I have to fight some litigation there .I have my AP Documents and EAD all right .
my Q is WILL THIS CAUSE RED FLAGS ON MY 485 APPLICATION. As long as I was in US I was employed. But I was out of US for my own personal situation.
Please advise
Thanks
Ram\
My labor and 140 are approved. 485 is pending.
Can I go to India and come back , say just 5 months before my PD comes current.
e.g. the EB2 is now hanging at March 05 . My PD is at Oct 05. When it comes to around Aug 05 ...I will come back and start working.
I have to fight some litigation there .I have my AP Documents and EAD all right .
my Q is WILL THIS CAUSE RED FLAGS ON MY 485 APPLICATION. As long as I was in US I was employed. But I was out of US for my own personal situation.
Please advise
Thanks
Ram\
girlfriend redhead ride hairstyle 2010
rocompo
08-24 03:35 PM
Hi All,
I have a simple question.
I have my I-140 approved with some kind of receipt number.
My lawyer filed my I-485 and it reached NSC on Aug 9, 2007.
I have not recd. any I-485 receipt notice or number yet.
Can i still track my I-485 progress using my I-140 receipt number on
the USCIS website somehow ?
Thanks for your answers.
I have a simple question.
I have my I-140 approved with some kind of receipt number.
My lawyer filed my I-485 and it reached NSC on Aug 9, 2007.
I have not recd. any I-485 receipt notice or number yet.
Can i still track my I-485 progress using my I-140 receipt number on
the USCIS website somehow ?
Thanks for your answers.
hairstyles Indian ridal hairstyles (12)
GCVivek
03-23 03:08 PM
It will be very tough. :eek:
jnraajan
01-21 04:39 PM
Technically, You AOS application provides you status. So, unlike on H1b, you can be without a job for a long strech of time. The problem arrives, when there is an REF on your I-485 application to show proof of offer. If you can show proof of employment, you should be fine. But, There is a possiblity that USCIS might ask you for recent paystubs or W2s. So, I wouldnt be without a job for too long.
At least this is my understanding of it. Anyone differing from this opinion?
At least this is my understanding of it. Anyone differing from this opinion?
chanduv23
09-17 12:20 AM
For the unmotivated folks - if the rally does not have enough numbers and does not pickup media attention - then yes nothing good can happen for you.
Lou Dobbs and Ron Hira will then go to Durbin And Grassley and frame a bill to give you more and more trouble
So you decide - you want to go to rally?
All the Tri State folks and DC area folks - EVERYONE MUST ATTEND THE RALLY
Lou Dobbs and Ron Hira will then go to Durbin And Grassley and frame a bill to give you more and more trouble
So you decide - you want to go to rally?
All the Tri State folks and DC area folks - EVERYONE MUST ATTEND THE RALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment