chanduv23
11-20 10:20 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wallpaper The Met Ball is known for…
pd052009
09-07 02:47 PM
It talks a lot about illegal immigrants. Though there is a myth about H1B program, there is nothing mentioned about LEGAL immigration backlog.
jmaan
07-18 10:08 AM
My mother is a GC holder since 91. I came to US in 2002 on F1 and then H1 and now GC.
Will the fact that my mom was a GC holder and I did not use that impact my GC? I have answered all the questions correctly(true i mean) always.
Please answer.
Thanks,
Jo.
Will the fact that my mom was a GC holder and I did not use that impact my GC? I have answered all the questions correctly(true i mean) always.
Please answer.
Thanks,
Jo.
2011 2011 MET Ball Celebrity White
pappu
08-11 03:03 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/11/navarrette/index.html
all
ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com
is his email address.
pls write to him asking him to cover our issue. also mention this website and organization name in the email so that he can contact us for any information. I have already sent him an email.
all
ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com
is his email address.
pls write to him asking him to cover our issue. also mention this website and organization name in the email so that he can contact us for any information. I have already sent him an email.
more...
Blog Feeds
01-20 07:00 AM
The Ranking Member of the House Immigration Subcommittee would like to deport all Haitians so they can help rebuild their country. Yeah, I'm sure that's what's motivating this "compassionate" proposal. Wonkette, the often hilarious DC gossip blog, has nicknamed King The #1 A@#hole in Congress for just this sort of rhetoric. ABC News quotes King: "This sounds to me like open borders advocates exercising the Rahm Emanuel axiom: 'Never let a crisis go to waste,'" Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said in an e-mail message to ABCNews. "Illegal immigrants from Haiti have no reason to fear deportation, but if they are...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/steve-king-wants-to-deport-haitians.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/steve-king-wants-to-deport-haitians.html)
shruthii_1210@yahoo.com
10-09 11:41 AM
Hi,
I got my EAD recenltly and my I140 approved long time back but my employer is keeping my I140 receipt number as a secret (both HR and attorney). Is there any way i can get I140 receipt number? do i need this if i want to use AC21 before or after 180 days ?
Brothers please help !!
Thanks
KArthink
I got my EAD recenltly and my I140 approved long time back but my employer is keeping my I140 receipt number as a secret (both HR and attorney). Is there any way i can get I140 receipt number? do i need this if i want to use AC21 before or after 180 days ?
Brothers please help !!
Thanks
KArthink
more...
cdeneo
05-14 04:25 PM
Valid AP is enough to travel - no one should care about your EAD if you are entering based on your AP. Ofcourse, always carry a copy of the I-485 and your wife can say that you are the primary applicant if they ask for her work status, etc...
Traveling with an AP (w/o EAD) should not be an issue. Good luck!
Traveling with an AP (w/o EAD) should not be an issue. Good luck!
2010 Anne Hathaway was glowing
Macaca
05-19 07:04 AM
House GOP Uses Procedural Tactic To Frustrate Democratic Majority Motion to Recommit Employed to Delay or Alter Legislation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801697.html?hpid=topnews) By Lyndsey Layton (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lyndsey+layton/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, May 19, 2007
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
more...
Blog Feeds
04-22 08:40 AM
Ed Schultz thinks the Arizona bill has forced the White House to deal with immigration reform sooner than they otherwise might have. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police issue a statement opposing the bill (somehow I doubt Sheriff Joe approved). America's Voice delivers a petition with 50,000 signatures urging Governor Brewer to veto the bill. NAFSA: The Association for International Education is concerned about the impact the bill will have on our ability to attract the best foreign students. The American Immigration Council warns Governor Brewer that...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/weighing-in-on-arizona-overreach.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/weighing-in-on-arizona-overreach.html)
hair Anne Hathaway,
ragz4u
02-05 04:47 PM
We are pleased to announce that renowned author and economist Dr. Richard Florida has endorsed the efforts of the folks at www.immigrationvoice.org
You can read the bio of Dr. Richard here http://www.creativeclass.org/_flight_author.shtml
The text of the endorsement can be seen here http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=43
You can read the bio of Dr. Richard here http://www.creativeclass.org/_flight_author.shtml
The text of the endorsement can be seen here http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=43
more...
godbless
03-17 12:14 PM
Yes it is pretty much recognised for h1b purpose or for any other purpose whatsoever. I got my first h1b approval on the basis of my MBA from IGNOU.
hot Anne Hathaway at the Met Ball
desitechie
09-04 05:22 PM
Please help me with online address change for CA DMV:
My current license expires in May 2010. I moved recently. If I change my address using CA-DMV�s online change of address process, Will I be able to renew my driver license online during renewal time (feb 2010)?
Whats the process for updating the address of the vehicle so that vehicle registration renewal (expected in Jan 2010) comes to the new address?
Thanks
My current license expires in May 2010. I moved recently. If I change my address using CA-DMV�s online change of address process, Will I be able to renew my driver license online during renewal time (feb 2010)?
Whats the process for updating the address of the vehicle so that vehicle registration renewal (expected in Jan 2010) comes to the new address?
Thanks
more...
house Anne Hathaway Oscar 2010
srisra
09-09 01:39 PM
I am working for my current company since 2001 and started GC process in 2003(EB3 10/2003). So far my company paid all expenses towards my GC. I applied for 485 in 8/07.
Recently I got an offer as Manager. This is a much better position.
If I take that offer, will my current employer have the right to cancel I-140(since he incurred all the expenses towards my GC).
My company's current lawyer will definitely send the cancellation of G-28. in addition I am sure he will also intimate that I am not working with my current employer anymore. In addition I am also afraid he might cancel my I-140 with the intimation from my current employer. In this case, is it better for me to approach a new lawyer and send the AC21 letter attaching my new offer before my current lawyer/employer does their process.
Do i need any other letter from my new employer other than the Offer Letter to send the AC21 letter?
I did not tell my new employer that I am now on EAD (becoz he does not understand anything except GC or Citizenship). is it OK if I dont tell beofre I join them?
Thanks guys.
Recently I got an offer as Manager. This is a much better position.
If I take that offer, will my current employer have the right to cancel I-140(since he incurred all the expenses towards my GC).
My company's current lawyer will definitely send the cancellation of G-28. in addition I am sure he will also intimate that I am not working with my current employer anymore. In addition I am also afraid he might cancel my I-140 with the intimation from my current employer. In this case, is it better for me to approach a new lawyer and send the AC21 letter attaching my new offer before my current lawyer/employer does their process.
Do i need any other letter from my new employer other than the Offer Letter to send the AC21 letter?
I did not tell my new employer that I am now on EAD (becoz he does not understand anything except GC or Citizenship). is it OK if I dont tell beofre I join them?
Thanks guys.
tattoo Kristen Stewart MET BALL 2011
stormrider0610
March 23rd, 2010, 12:06 PM
i have it on Nikon mount, and one of the samples i tested had a back focus issue. i just bought the one that didnt. Sigma is real good at fixing/replacing defective lenses
I have to agree with that, I did send it back to Sigma and 3 weeks later it was fixed and now I seem to have focussing issues with my A700 and a couple lenses that seem to work fine on my A300 but this Sigma works really well on the A700 and A300.
I have to agree with that, I did send it back to Sigma and 3 weeks later it was fixed and now I seem to have focussing issues with my A700 and a couple lenses that seem to work fine on my A300 but this Sigma works really well on the A700 and A300.