kumarkk
09-05 06:35 PM
Can you Please share your experince.
wallpaper hair For tonight#39;s Academy
prasadn
06-22 04:27 PM
My wife currently is on an H1-B visa and she also has EAD/AP based on my I-485 filing. Due to personal reasons she plans to quit her job soon (next 2-3 weeks or so). What will be her status? Should we be filing COS to H-4? Can we get a RFE for proof of her employment when I-485 is processed?
Thanks,
Prasad
Thanks,
Prasad
aadimanav
03-15 01:29 PM
...deleted...
2011 Nicole Kidman Braid
SilverLining
08-08 06:08 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12023&highlight=location
more...
azharuddinm
07-17 10:39 AM
USCIS Nebraska Service Center
850 "S" Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
850 "S" Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
msadiqali
10-06 01:32 AM
Finally some movement from GCC states to satisfy their peoples wishes
The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html)
The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html)
more...
Blog Feeds
01-30 06:40 AM
Last week, White House adviser David Axelrod noted that immigration reform would not happen in the near term unless there was bipartisan support. That's really always been the case, but the comment seems consistent with something said this week by Senate Democratic leaders (as noted in an email alert sent by America's Voice today): During a news conference held by Senate Democratic leaders yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both made clear their unequivocal support for comprehensive immigration reform and outlined their efforts...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/two-plus-two.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/two-plus-two.html)
2010 hair to her eyes and
Blog Feeds
12-19 01:00 PM
Since the early days of this blog, I've chastised immigration bureaucrats who use specious reasoning to treat small businesses petitioning for employment-related immigration benefits more harshly than their large-cap counterparts. The latest assault on fairness and reason is reflected in a trend affecting several categories of employment-based visas -- the H-1B (Worker in a Specialty Occupation), the L-1 nonimmigrant (Intracompany-Transferee Manager or Executive) and the EB1-3 (Multinational Manager or Executive). An example of this trend is a recently released EB1-3 decision (decided May 1, 2009) of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) denying an immigrant visa petition for a multinational...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/when-will-they-ever-learn-immigration-denial-thrives-perniciously-at-uscis.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/when-will-they-ever-learn-immigration-denial-thrives-perniciously-at-uscis.html)
more...
salamiran2000
10-11 09:28 AM
I mailed my application on August 10th, reached on 13th. I received all the receipt notices today.
hair Nicole Kidman#39;s elegant curly
vpadman
03-13 06:55 PM
Is it possible to file H1B1 transfer without lawyer?
There is a desi consulting that says they will do H1B1 transfer without lawyer.
For premium processing, they charge a fee of $3500
There is a desi consulting that says they will do H1B1 transfer without lawyer.
For premium processing, they charge a fee of $3500
more...
raysaikat
08-04 11:36 PM
Could anyone please provide me some links that have information about future employement green cards? I am working with a consultant who is willing to work with me on this but wants more information about the process.
Thank you!!
You can do anything (including doing nothing). However it is the norm to work for the sponsoring employer (or the latest employer if you used AC21) for 6 month to 1 year to ensure that no question arises in future regarding the legitimacy of the job offer based on which your GC was approved.
Thank you!!
You can do anything (including doing nothing). However it is the norm to work for the sponsoring employer (or the latest employer if you used AC21) for 6 month to 1 year to ensure that no question arises in future regarding the legitimacy of the job offer based on which your GC was approved.
hot nicole kidman height
Skelerex
07-11 04:21 PM
So, This is a very simple tee i came up with. I figured i would make one relating to Kirupa, and its also a great way to get Kirupa noticed all over the world. Not the best one ive seen on here, but i just wanted to get it out.
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2746/kirupatdc102010.gif (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/kirupatdc102010.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2746/kirupatdc102010.gif (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/kirupatdc102010.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
more...
house Nicole Kidman at Rabbit Hole
helpmeExperts
02-06 01:43 PM
go to nvars.com & take US embassy apointment for visa stamping.
generally its filled 4 weeks ahead, so keep trying. first get a canadian visa from nearby canada embassy or by courier/mail
generally its filled 4 weeks ahead, so keep trying. first get a canadian visa from nearby canada embassy or by courier/mail
tattoo 2010 Hair Fringe Styles Short
masterji
10-15 07:13 PM
I got mine in about three weeks.
more...
pictures hair Weight: 53 kg tom cruise
f1vlad
10-29 12:36 PM
Nashua,NH here.
dresses Hair Short Modern: megan fox
Jubba
03-10 11:42 PM
lol thanks for the good words ;)
more...
makeup hair Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman
scorpion
01-23 03:59 PM
I think once you use EAD; you will no longer in H status.
girlfriend nicole-kidman-billboard-awards
saibabu_d
06-25 01:09 AM
Hello,
Will there be any problem if there is any address overlap in the addresses given for the last 5 years and outside US address for more than a year.
In my 485 application, dates of India address is overlapping with US address for 1 year. Will it be a problem, if it is how to correct it since my application was already sent?
Thanks.
Will there be any problem if there is any address overlap in the addresses given for the last 5 years and outside US address for more than a year.
In my 485 application, dates of India address is overlapping with US address for 1 year. Will it be a problem, if it is how to correct it since my application was already sent?
Thanks.
hairstyles nicole kidman pics
Blog Feeds
08-09 10:40 PM
California taxpayers need to cover higher fees of private lawyers, who are hired by the state as the Attorney General's Office doesn't have the staff to handle all of the cases internally. In some instances, the state has employed outside counsel at hourly rates that reach $450 even while most of its in-house lawyers earn less than half that. Rates can be much higher, if the suits require private attorneys having a particular expertise.
Since January 2008, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has signed about $24 million in contracts with private lawyers hired because the Attorney General's Office says it's too shorthanded to take the jobs. The corrections department is seeking the additional help despite having about 80 lawyers of its own to handle a gamut of cases, with about a dozen of those assigned to prisoner-filed litigation.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/private_lawyers_costs_heavily.html)
Since January 2008, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has signed about $24 million in contracts with private lawyers hired because the Attorney General's Office says it's too shorthanded to take the jobs. The corrections department is seeking the additional help despite having about 80 lawyers of its own to handle a gamut of cases, with about a dozen of those assigned to prisoner-filed litigation.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/private_lawyers_costs_heavily.html)
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
Just hours after the announcement that DHS will seek to rescind the controversial social security no-match rule, the Senate may consider an amendment to the DHS spending bill that has been introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Amendment 1375 would bar DHS from revoking the rule and require its implementation. The amendment language is as follows: Sec. 556. None of the amounts made available under this Act may be used to-- (1) amend, rewrite, or change the final rule requiring Federal Contractors to use E-Verify (promulgated on November 14, 2008); (2) further delay the implementation of the rule described in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/senate-may-consider-bill-to-reimpose-nomatch-rule.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/senate-may-consider-bill-to-reimpose-nomatch-rule.html)
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment