IN2US
07-25 06:05 PM
Hi
I have moved recently to San Jose. Can anyone help me where to find doctor for my medical check up for my GC.
check this link
https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=offices.type&OfficeLocator.office_type=CIV
Hope this helps
Good Luck :)
I have moved recently to San Jose. Can anyone help me where to find doctor for my medical check up for my GC.
check this link
https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=offices.type&OfficeLocator.office_type=CIV
Hope this helps
Good Luck :)
wallpaper the new iPod touch were a
ashokmads
02-13 04:10 PM
Hi All,
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
pt326bc
10-16 04:31 PM
Has anybody had any experience with changing address to PO box on form AR 11 with USCIS or otherwise.
I recently had mail theft and have obtained a PO box but am not sure if we can fill out form AR 11 using PO box address. Mail theft is not uncommon and nobody would like to lose their EADs/FP notices in mail. The form asks for street address.
Also if people utilize AC21 to change jobs (or change locations) it would be simpler to have a PO box to get your mail.
I have put out the question to my lawyer but haven't heard back yet.
Anybody with any experience do post.
Regrards.
I recently had mail theft and have obtained a PO box but am not sure if we can fill out form AR 11 using PO box address. Mail theft is not uncommon and nobody would like to lose their EADs/FP notices in mail. The form asks for street address.
Also if people utilize AC21 to change jobs (or change locations) it would be simpler to have a PO box to get your mail.
I have put out the question to my lawyer but haven't heard back yet.
Anybody with any experience do post.
Regrards.
2011 case for the “iPod touch
kirupa
03-10 11:57 PM
Is this just a screenshot?
more...
chanduv23
09-17 06:55 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
prem_goel
09-09 03:54 PM
Visa Bulletin for October 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5145.html)
Looks like the dates did not retrogress. Bit of a good news :)
EB2-I 08MAY06
EB3-I 15JAN02
EB2-C 22MAY06
EB3-C 08NOV03
Looks like the dates did not retrogress. Bit of a good news :)
EB2-I 08MAY06
EB3-I 15JAN02
EB2-C 22MAY06
EB3-C 08NOV03
more...
vinito
08-15 02:57 PM
Was just wondering if anyone from MA/NY area with I-140 approved from NSC and I-485 also sent to NSC on July2nd have got their receipts/checks cashed.
Thanks.
Thanks.
2010 4th Generation idox has a
inalimbo
08-16 11:18 PM
someone please help.. and reply!
more...
ashishgour
10-25 06:07 PM
Hope this bill helps us !!!:confused:
http://www.immigration-law.com/
http://www.immigration-law.com/
hair 10 New iPod Touch Cases Under
nozerd
10-14 12:27 AM
I am an EB3 INDIA PD:August 2001 expecting long wait for greencard.
I am Canadian PR and have been offered job by my current company's Toronto office. Company will continue US GC process but till I get GC I will be in Canada on Canadian payroll so legally cant visit US on H1B visa.
My spouse is doing a professional degree in US which will last another 2 ys. She has expired H4 visa stamp on passport. She will be applying for H4 --->F1 conversion.
My question is can she return back to USA after visiting me in Canada using AVR ? She would be on F1 but with expired H1 on passport ? She will not apply for new visa in Canada and leave within 30 days.
Thanks
I am Canadian PR and have been offered job by my current company's Toronto office. Company will continue US GC process but till I get GC I will be in Canada on Canadian payroll so legally cant visit US on H1B visa.
My spouse is doing a professional degree in US which will last another 2 ys. She has expired H4 visa stamp on passport. She will be applying for H4 --->F1 conversion.
My question is can she return back to USA after visiting me in Canada using AVR ? She would be on F1 but with expired H1 on passport ? She will not apply for new visa in Canada and leave within 30 days.
Thanks
more...
kirupa
06-14 07:41 PM
Hey Kiwi,
You cannot create keyframes in Swift 3D. You can arrange or move around keyframes, and that is only by adjusting the animation path. I'll try to check and see if there is some hidden way of inserting keyframes in Swift.
You cannot create keyframes in Swift 3D. You can arrange or move around keyframes, and that is only by adjusting the animation path. I'll try to check and see if there is some hidden way of inserting keyframes in Swift.
hot Perfectly fits the iPod Touch
dealsnet
02-11 06:48 PM
GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.
DON'T START A THREAD FOR THIS.
CHECK WIKIPEDIA.can some kind souls please explain to me what is the meaning of 'retrogression'?
thank you
:confused:
DON'T START A THREAD FOR THIS.
CHECK WIKIPEDIA.can some kind souls please explain to me what is the meaning of 'retrogression'?
thank you
:confused:
more...
house New Ipod Touch 4th Generation
Macaca
08-15 09:25 PM
Bush, Congress Struggle in Public Eye (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501271.html) By DAVID ESPO | The Associated Press, August 15, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Democratic-controlled Congress and President Bush seem locked in a perverse competition for public unfavorability, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll.
The survey shows Bush's approval ratings at 35 percent, and Congress' even lower, 25 percent. Only 27 percent of those polled said the country is headed in the right direction, and 39 percent said they support the Iraq war, with 58 percent opposed.
While Bush's favorability ratings have remained relatively unchanged for months, Congress' support declined markedly between May and July, a dip confirmed in a poll of 1,003 people taken last week.
Asked whether they approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job after seven months of divided government, those surveyed were then prompted to volunteer a reason.
Of the 74 percent of those expressing congressional disapproval, 22 percent said lawmakers generally aren't doing their jobs. Another 20 percent cited a specific issue for their unhappiness. Twelve percent said they disapprove of Congress because lawmakers care only about themselves and their party, while 10 percent cited backstabbing and infighting.
Among those who cited an issue, the war in Iraq was mentioned most often. It was cited by 7 percent of those disapproving of Congress' performance, followed by health care, 5 percent; immigration, 2 percent and employment and wage issues, 2 percent.
The survey was taken as Congress was beginning its August recess, providing a respite from months of unsuccessfully trying to force Bush to change course in Iraq.
Democratic leaders have vowed to renew their challenge to Bush when they return to the Capitol after Labor Day. An autumn clash also looms over federal spending, and Bush has posted veto threats against bills dealing with farm programs, expansion of children's health care and energy.
"I don't think this war is going the way it should be. We're over there for nothing," said Richard Reda, 64, of Nashua, N.H., a Vietenam War veteran and self-described political independent.
In an interview, he said, "I think Congress should go over Bush's head and get these troops back here. There's got to be a way where they can override Bush to get the troops back here."
Maria Guyan, a 28-year-old school secretary from Struthers, Ohio, agreed. Guyan described her politics as "lean Democrat" and said, "I just don't think they're doing enough to keep President Bush from basically going forward on whatever he wants."
She said Congress should focus most on withdrawing from Iraq and improving the nation's education system.
"We definitely need to get out of the war, and we need to basically just realize we cannot run another country in addition to our own," she said.
But Peggy Grandinetti, 69, a Republican from Florence, Ala., criticized Congress for not standing by Bush on the war.
"I just completely disagree of pulling out of Iraq. I think we ought to stay there and finish the job," said the retired medical assistant.
Richard Henson, 58, of Atlanta, Ga., was among the Democrats who said Congress has failed to address a problem with illegal immigration.
"The immigrants are running bills up," said the post office manager, citing health care and school taxes as examples. "We have to pay extra taxes to support illegal immigrants. I don't think they should benefit from our services that we're paying taxes on."
Wes Kangas, 65, a Republican and retired banker in Vancouver, Wash., expressed weariness. "They don't seem to get anything done. All they do is bicker back and forth. After a while it gets kind of old," he said.
Republicans were more likely to say Congress wasn't doing its job, 26 percent, while Democrats tended to cite a specific issue, 24 percent. Among independents, 22 percent said generally that lawmakers weren't doing their job, and 20 percent pointed to a specific issue, a list topped by the war in Iraq.
When it came to judging Bush, 70 percent of Republicans approved of his performance, with 27 percent disapproving. Democrats split 89-9 in disapproval, and 68 percent of independents disapproved.
Congress, by contrast, was held in disregard without regard to party.
Among independents, 73 percent said they disapproved of the way Congress was handling its job, with 23 percent expressing approval. Among Democrats, a striking 70 percent disapproved and 26 percent approved, while Republicans split, 74-23, in disapproval.
The poll's margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points.
WASHINGTON -- The Democratic-controlled Congress and President Bush seem locked in a perverse competition for public unfavorability, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll.
The survey shows Bush's approval ratings at 35 percent, and Congress' even lower, 25 percent. Only 27 percent of those polled said the country is headed in the right direction, and 39 percent said they support the Iraq war, with 58 percent opposed.
While Bush's favorability ratings have remained relatively unchanged for months, Congress' support declined markedly between May and July, a dip confirmed in a poll of 1,003 people taken last week.
Asked whether they approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job after seven months of divided government, those surveyed were then prompted to volunteer a reason.
Of the 74 percent of those expressing congressional disapproval, 22 percent said lawmakers generally aren't doing their jobs. Another 20 percent cited a specific issue for their unhappiness. Twelve percent said they disapprove of Congress because lawmakers care only about themselves and their party, while 10 percent cited backstabbing and infighting.
Among those who cited an issue, the war in Iraq was mentioned most often. It was cited by 7 percent of those disapproving of Congress' performance, followed by health care, 5 percent; immigration, 2 percent and employment and wage issues, 2 percent.
The survey was taken as Congress was beginning its August recess, providing a respite from months of unsuccessfully trying to force Bush to change course in Iraq.
Democratic leaders have vowed to renew their challenge to Bush when they return to the Capitol after Labor Day. An autumn clash also looms over federal spending, and Bush has posted veto threats against bills dealing with farm programs, expansion of children's health care and energy.
"I don't think this war is going the way it should be. We're over there for nothing," said Richard Reda, 64, of Nashua, N.H., a Vietenam War veteran and self-described political independent.
In an interview, he said, "I think Congress should go over Bush's head and get these troops back here. There's got to be a way where they can override Bush to get the troops back here."
Maria Guyan, a 28-year-old school secretary from Struthers, Ohio, agreed. Guyan described her politics as "lean Democrat" and said, "I just don't think they're doing enough to keep President Bush from basically going forward on whatever he wants."
She said Congress should focus most on withdrawing from Iraq and improving the nation's education system.
"We definitely need to get out of the war, and we need to basically just realize we cannot run another country in addition to our own," she said.
But Peggy Grandinetti, 69, a Republican from Florence, Ala., criticized Congress for not standing by Bush on the war.
"I just completely disagree of pulling out of Iraq. I think we ought to stay there and finish the job," said the retired medical assistant.
Richard Henson, 58, of Atlanta, Ga., was among the Democrats who said Congress has failed to address a problem with illegal immigration.
"The immigrants are running bills up," said the post office manager, citing health care and school taxes as examples. "We have to pay extra taxes to support illegal immigrants. I don't think they should benefit from our services that we're paying taxes on."
Wes Kangas, 65, a Republican and retired banker in Vancouver, Wash., expressed weariness. "They don't seem to get anything done. All they do is bicker back and forth. After a while it gets kind of old," he said.
Republicans were more likely to say Congress wasn't doing its job, 26 percent, while Democrats tended to cite a specific issue, 24 percent. Among independents, 22 percent said generally that lawmakers weren't doing their job, and 20 percent pointed to a specific issue, a list topped by the war in Iraq.
When it came to judging Bush, 70 percent of Republicans approved of his performance, with 27 percent disapproving. Democrats split 89-9 in disapproval, and 68 percent of independents disapproved.
Congress, by contrast, was held in disregard without regard to party.
Among independents, 73 percent said they disapproved of the way Congress was handling its job, with 23 percent expressing approval. Among Democrats, a striking 70 percent disapproved and 26 percent approved, while Republicans split, 74-23, in disapproval.
The poll's margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points.
tattoo Belkin iPod touch Cases for
Circus123
04-04 11:21 PM
This article is very interesting. The legal immigration dropped even though the applications flooded in last year.
Check these links out!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVzJBVTd1tawK227QQZltW_jigzwD8VRA5JO1
Interesting data statistics:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
Check these links out!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVzJBVTd1tawK227QQZltW_jigzwD8VRA5JO1
Interesting data statistics:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
more...
pictures APPLE IPOD TOUCH 4th GEN Case
kirupa
09-05 05:37 AM
Or a banning of his IP should the need arise ;-)
dresses The new Street Skin is already
meetpravee
03-17 01:10 PM
I have been a silent user of IV for a very long time. When the Action item came for FOIA, I was wondering why such important information is buried in several threads. Then I started looking around in the IV site and found Action Alert button in home page. I saw this button for the first time after using IV for months and months. I just jump into the forum and start reading. I believe this button is not so obvious and it doesn't grab attention.
I think Action Alert is the first thing that users should see, so that they can know what IV is doing and how they can contribute.
IV core team / pappu - Could you please consider renaming this button and moving it so that it is very obvious to all users.
I think Action Alert is the first thing that users should see, so that they can know what IV is doing and how they can contribute.
IV core team / pappu - Could you please consider renaming this button and moving it so that it is very obvious to all users.
more...
makeup These cases are come in
saketkapur
02-28 10:39 AM
Hi
My wife who is currently working as a doctor in medically underserved area(J1 waiver case), on cap exempt H1B visa. Her clinic is contemplating name change. I will really appreciate if someone can shed the light on how might this proposed name change can/will impact her status?
Her visa is currently unstamped and we are planning to get the same done this year in october. My queries are as follows:
1. Will a new waiver petition and H1B visa need to be filed or only an addendum notification to the USCIS will suffice?
2. If the latter is true then what kind of additional documentation will be needed for visa stamping from the lawyer?
Attorney input will be highly appreciated.
regards
Saket Kapur
My wife who is currently working as a doctor in medically underserved area(J1 waiver case), on cap exempt H1B visa. Her clinic is contemplating name change. I will really appreciate if someone can shed the light on how might this proposed name change can/will impact her status?
Her visa is currently unstamped and we are planning to get the same done this year in october. My queries are as follows:
1. Will a new waiver petition and H1B visa need to be filed or only an addendum notification to the USCIS will suffice?
2. If the latter is true then what kind of additional documentation will be needed for visa stamping from the lawyer?
Attorney input will be highly appreciated.
regards
Saket Kapur
girlfriend hairstyles new ipod touch with
bamasri10309
08-03 02:56 PM
Did you guys talk about this already ? I apologize if this has been analyzed already...
Murthy.com issues a Oct visa bulletin prediction based on information from DOS
http://murthy.com/news/n_oct07vb.html
Murthy.com issues a Oct visa bulletin prediction based on information from DOS
http://murthy.com/news/n_oct07vb.html
hairstyles 10 New iPod Touch Cases Under
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
cinqsit
11-06 08:25 PM
It means nothing. The second 485 was denied since you already have a green card so
Adjustment of Status is not required.
BTW - why did you file two 485's ?
cinqsit
Adjustment of Status is not required.
BTW - why did you file two 485's ?
cinqsit
deletedUser459
11-10 10:24 PM
hm...i like the concept. i think it could be better if the guy stood out color wise from the background, and different fonts
No comments:
Post a Comment