abhijitp
12-31 04:12 PM
Happy 2nd Anniversary IV!
Finding you (and NOT being able to apply for I-485) was my biggest achievement in 2007!
On this day... let us all pledge to working so hard that "retrogression" is history before IV turns 3!
Finding you (and NOT being able to apply for I-485) was my biggest achievement in 2007!
On this day... let us all pledge to working so hard that "retrogression" is history before IV turns 3!
wallpaper Le Prairies De Paris Shirt Pool Jack Black Cotton/silk Shirt Pool Jack
irrational
06-19 05:52 PM
Folks,
I have not recieved my FP notices either. Last time I checked they are still being sent.
I have the online status and the receipt number. Would that me enough ?
-Bipin
I have not recieved my FP notices either. Last time I checked they are still being sent.
I have the online status and the receipt number. Would that me enough ?
-Bipin
pushkarw
12-21 01:50 PM
The omni-bus has come and gone! The MILLION dollar drive is a long term strategy. It aims to give IV enough funds to steamroll ahead. It will help IV become pro-active. Every time there is a ray of hope, IV has to come to us for money. A MILLION dollars will ensure that IV does not have to do that. We are nearly 30,000 members and not enough are contributing. The MILLION dollar drive was about one-time contributions of $250 (mind you all contributions are valuable) to reach the magic figure of a million dollars. IV needs the money to become more powerful.
What is that "Million $$$ drive". I did contrubute to omini bus 30K drive. But I havent heard of this drive?
What is that "Million $$$ drive". I did contrubute to omini bus 30K drive. But I havent heard of this drive?
2011 Paris Hilton False Lash Nails Gift Set
Jaime
05-25 09:47 AM
I called Sen. Cornyn's office but got a recording, with no possibility to leave a message. Then I called Sen. Kennedy's office and the immigration counsel was on the floor but they had a person in charge taking messages for him and she took at and said she would deliver it to him. Let's keep at it!
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
coolngood4u80
04-15 10:50 AM
Hi All,
There are lots of people on the Face book who are getting affected by 221G for H1B/H14. Target those people individually and convince them to join us. Contact the members individually. Every member should convince at least 10 new members...we cannot afford to lose this. We will arrange for conf. call in the coming days�
I can get four people for the call who are in the same boat
There are lots of people on the Face book who are getting affected by 221G for H1B/H14. Target those people individually and convince them to join us. Contact the members individually. Every member should convince at least 10 new members...we cannot afford to lose this. We will arrange for conf. call in the coming days�
I can get four people for the call who are in the same boat
more...
singhsa3
07-12 09:45 AM
Hi Can I send you the latest template based on several suggestion, that you could load it on you website?
Singhsa,
Thats a great poem!!
I have made some aesthetic changes to your document and uploaded here.
http://www.geocities.com/latejunefiler/Ghandhigiri.pdf
Singhsa,
Thats a great poem!!
I have made some aesthetic changes to your document and uploaded here.
http://www.geocities.com/latejunefiler/Ghandhigiri.pdf
2010 sad love quotes and sayings
thomachan72
11-08 03:03 PM
regarding carrying older LCAs;
It might never be asked. However, the only time it is asked is when you dont have it with you.
Be prepared to carry a transparent plastic bag or so with all the documents. Its a pain but better to be careful.:(
It might never be asked. However, the only time it is asked is when you dont have it with you.
Be prepared to carry a transparent plastic bag or so with all the documents. Its a pain but better to be careful.:(
more...
Ramba
04-22 02:19 PM
My lawyer got the RFE notice yesterday....
My LC / I-140 stated that I am an "Electrical Engineering Technician" due to PW concerns at the time of application but my H1-B application said "Applications Engineer (Chemicals Group)". But the job duties were exactly the same word for word. I'm not sure if that is causing the problem. I am being paid significantly more than the LC / 1-140 wage currently. So, lack of ability to pay is not an issue. I have also been continuously employed by the same organization. I have not sought a different employer ever since I applied for my GC.
Please reply with your thoughts.
Though, it appears as regular employment verification letter, there may be catch in it due to what you explained above. Though you were an "engineer" in H1B, your employer applied as a "technician" in green card application (LC/140) to overcome pre-wailing wage issue. This is not good one if they found out, as the technicians can not be in H1B visa. You can not argue I will be technician after getting GC. Also, you can not use AC21 as "engineers" and "technicians" are not similar occupations.
My LC / I-140 stated that I am an "Electrical Engineering Technician" due to PW concerns at the time of application but my H1-B application said "Applications Engineer (Chemicals Group)". But the job duties were exactly the same word for word. I'm not sure if that is causing the problem. I am being paid significantly more than the LC / 1-140 wage currently. So, lack of ability to pay is not an issue. I have also been continuously employed by the same organization. I have not sought a different employer ever since I applied for my GC.
Please reply with your thoughts.
Though, it appears as regular employment verification letter, there may be catch in it due to what you explained above. Though you were an "engineer" in H1B, your employer applied as a "technician" in green card application (LC/140) to overcome pre-wailing wage issue. This is not good one if they found out, as the technicians can not be in H1B visa. You can not argue I will be technician after getting GC. Also, you can not use AC21 as "engineers" and "technicians" are not similar occupations.
hair love quotes in spanish
Dakota Newfie
07-13 09:36 AM
Since the topic of giving preference to professional athletes has come up, I'd like to relay an the experience I had when I came to the U.S. for a job interview in August of '01; when going through U.S. customs at Logan Airport (this was pre 9/11), I was arbitrarily "singled out for interrogation" for TWO HOURS! During that time, a customs official made some small talk with me while we waited for the supervisor to arrive and he asked me if I was a hockey player (since I am Canadian) to which I replied "no"; he then informed me that was too bad because otherwise I would pass through without any problems or questions! Too bad they didn't "single out" Atta and the boys the same way two weeks later- or maybe they went through as hockey players!
more...
nozerd
11-17 11:44 AM
Do you agree with this statement
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. If there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
If Employment Based Immigration Reform happens, it will happen in Calander year 2007. This reform could be in any form CIR or SKIL. If there is no reform by January 2008 its not gonna happen.
Thanks
hot Let#39;s Go To Sleep In Paris
raysaikat
01-23 12:13 AM
Has anyone of you heard about Nunc Pro Tunc H1B? Will that help in my current situation with a valid and approved LCA?
Nunc pro tunc means a retroactive action normally used to correct past clerical errors. For instance, suppose your birth year is 1978 and in a form you put 1987. You may be able to retroactively correct that, which would be a nunc pro tunc.
Your problem is not a clerical error; you did not file H1-B in the first place and started working. I will be extremely surprised if you can make USCIS accept (what is in essence) a back-dated H1-B petition!
Nunc pro tunc means a retroactive action normally used to correct past clerical errors. For instance, suppose your birth year is 1978 and in a form you put 1987. You may be able to retroactively correct that, which would be a nunc pro tunc.
Your problem is not a clerical error; you did not file H1-B in the first place and started working. I will be extremely surprised if you can make USCIS accept (what is in essence) a back-dated H1-B petition!
more...
house Cute love quotes and tristana
deba
06-05 05:42 PM
In the same boat, I have the same status on USPS tracking for delivery at TSC. Will wait and see if the status changes or if they cash the check. So I guess you are not alone. :-)
tattoo The quote I love the best
jkays94
05-03 11:40 AM
Understood, I fully concur and if we remain on focus and on target with the message regarding legal immigrants we will get there. I will play my part by sending the reporter an email (as an individual incase the core has something in mind).
more...
pictures Paris Hilton Quotes Android
jettu77
03-13 01:14 PM
Congratulations!
dresses Hilary Duff amp; Paris Hilton
forgerator
11-11 11:49 AM
Thank you for the post. It is really helpful. May I know if the new job should be >=50% different from the current job (EB3) offer? Or it doesn�t matter because of the MS requirement?
Thank you
Project_A
It should be greater than 50% different if you wish to use the previous position's experience.
Here is how it happened in my case
Company 1 - 2yrs exp
Company 2 position 1 - 3 yrs exp
Company 2 position 2 - 0.5 yrs exp (I was able to only reclaim the 2yrs exp gained at company 1 but that along with my existing MS degree was enough for filing for EB2. In company 2 both position 1 and position 2 are similar so I could not use those 3 yrs for my EB2).
Thank you
Project_A
It should be greater than 50% different if you wish to use the previous position's experience.
Here is how it happened in my case
Company 1 - 2yrs exp
Company 2 position 1 - 3 yrs exp
Company 2 position 2 - 0.5 yrs exp (I was able to only reclaim the 2yrs exp gained at company 1 but that along with my existing MS degree was enough for filing for EB2. In company 2 both position 1 and position 2 are similar so I could not use those 3 yrs for my EB2).
more...
makeup Love quotes inspire me.
perm2gc
01-06 04:46 PM
My wife is on H4 and is exploring the posibility of converting to a H1. She recently went for her first interview and the people over there told her that there is a new rule for H4 to H1B conversion. According to them, she needs to go to India and get her H1B stamped before she can start working. Is this true? As far as I know, all one needs is an approved I-797 (for I-129 petition) indicating that the approval is for change of status to H1B (meaning that the approval notice has a I-94).
Please let me know if there is any merit in the above statement?
Nope its not true.All she need is approved I-797.Visa Stamping is only required when she has to travel outside US and reenter.
Please let me know if there is any merit in the above statement?
Nope its not true.All she need is approved I-797.Visa Stamping is only required when she has to travel outside US and reenter.
girlfriend love quotes of all quotes
lostinbeta
09-06 04:01 PM
There are multiple ways of doing it. I use your way, but I was trying to go a way that was easier to explain so if anyone who is new to photoshop read this, they would understand.
hairstyles i love you quotes and_09.
soni7007
09-15 12:13 PM
I am glad that some of us are positive moving fwd with this idea. There are some other threads talking about other action items (write letters etc.). I think the first thing we need to do is to join hands and then decide a game plan. We need to concentrate the total energy at one point. What do you think?
walking_dude
10-19 02:58 PM
Thanks for the clarification.
I would greatly appreciate if any future outages in check collections are posted on the Homepage page at least one or two weeks in advance.
Reason - if member opted for "Bill Pay" (to make payments recurring )Bank deducts the money from the account as soon as the Paper check [from the bank] gets sent . This is done to ensure that the Bank has the cash to pay the check it mailed to payee (IV). If check never gets encashed that money is lost and wasted!
I don't know if this is feasible or not, but if IV can provide a bank Account Number and Routing, "Bill Pay" can be set such that Bank will send the amount Electonically to IV account (as E-check). E-checks get cashed in 2 days compared to Paper checks (sent by the bank) which takes 5 days [per my bank]. It's just a suggestion as I have no ideas on the issues and the logistics involved.
This is only temporary. We will accept the checks after some time and will update the page.
I would greatly appreciate if any future outages in check collections are posted on the Homepage page at least one or two weeks in advance.
Reason - if member opted for "Bill Pay" (to make payments recurring )Bank deducts the money from the account as soon as the Paper check [from the bank] gets sent . This is done to ensure that the Bank has the cash to pay the check it mailed to payee (IV). If check never gets encashed that money is lost and wasted!
I don't know if this is feasible or not, but if IV can provide a bank Account Number and Routing, "Bill Pay" can be set such that Bank will send the amount Electonically to IV account (as E-check). E-checks get cashed in 2 days compared to Paper checks (sent by the bank) which takes 5 days [per my bank]. It's just a suggestion as I have no ideas on the issues and the logistics involved.
This is only temporary. We will accept the checks after some time and will update the page.
techie.dude
03-16 03:14 PM
Need your opinion on this.. filed for I-485 on EB2 in July 07. I am the primary applicant. I have been married since May '04. Need to apply for a divorce. My wife, a derivative in my application, is holding up the process as it may affect her chances of getting a GC without any sweat. She has an parallel GC process running solely in her name, which I believe hasnt cleared PERM yet (some sort of audit). She is on H1B, extendable for another 3 years, and has EAD from my GC application. Will there be any implications on her application if the divorce goes through? And also, can I out of spite do anything to get her derivative application out of the queue :rolleyes: ?
No comments:
Post a Comment