Blog Feeds
09-15 12:40 PM
Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo each link to my post from Friday. Zackary Roth at TCM also checked with additional immigration lawyers in South Carolina who had similar reports to the ones with whom I spoke. And not to stray too far from the more important question, my friend Marshall Fitz at the Center for American Progress has a new piece refuting the lie that illegally present immigrants are covered by health care reform proposals.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/more-people-are-asking-whether-joe-wilson-really-practiced-immigration-lawyer-.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/more-people-are-asking-whether-joe-wilson-really-practiced-immigration-lawyer-.html)
wallpaper emo hairstyles boys.
.jpg "wallpaper male emo hairstyles")
Macaca
08-05 08:12 AM
A Bad Deal Gets Worse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05sun2.html) August 5, 2007
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
hopeless
08-24 02:43 PM
I need feedback from you guys. I have researched this lawyer before I got her to start my greencard and the feedbacks seems that she is efficient and knowledgeable. However, since we signed the contract with her, things have been moving so slow. She doesn't want to talk to me or give me status updates when asked. She has all the information needed from me and my employer to start the prevailing wage request but a month has passes and nothing has been requested yet. Has anybody here experience the same thing?
2011 wallpaper male emo hairstyles
ameryki
09-13 04:46 PM
don't think their is a set time required. I know people that left their employer the day after gc arrived, know people that left 6 months after their approval and some that have worked for their employer even after receiving their green card for over 4 years. hope this helps
more...
thomasstuart
11-24 06:35 AM
Yes, you can apply for H-4 despite the fact that she has an H1 petition approved. It is difficult for me to comment on her H-4 rejection chances as I am not familiar with your cases, but generally if you are on valid H-1 status then you should not have problems.
snathan
03-02 06:13 PM
Hi, i have filed I-140 3 months back and it is still in process. Am I able to file I-485 in parallel to the I-140 now.
Whats your country of chargeability and category...
EB1 - Yes, you can
EB2- ROW - Yes
EB2 I/C - wait time is 3-5 years
EB3 I/C - wait time is 10-12 years
EB3 - ROW - wait time is 5-6 years.
Whats your country of chargeability and category...
EB1 - Yes, you can
EB2- ROW - Yes
EB2 I/C - wait time is 3-5 years
EB3 I/C - wait time is 10-12 years
EB3 - ROW - wait time is 5-6 years.
more...
octoberbloom
01-09 12:37 PM
I e-filed on october 20th.
Got RFE and RFE recieved by USCIS on 3rd december. No news after that :mad:
Got RFE and RFE recieved by USCIS on 3rd december. No news after that :mad:
2010 Emo Hairstyles
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.
more...
anilsal
01-20 08:53 PM
At this time, try the best you can.
Only when you get an RFE, do you have to provide employment verification letters etc.
Only when you get an RFE, do you have to provide employment verification letters etc.
hair Funky Short Haircut for Trendy
amitr2k
09-19 03:42 AM
Hi, i would like to know the fees to get the L1-B transferred to L1-A.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
arnet
12-07 03:53 PM
I've a situation here to switch from Company A (who sponsors my GC and H1B) to Company B, I've completed AOS (6 months period too):
1. Whether I can transfer my H1B (sponsored by company A) to company B when i join them? (but H1B is not stamped yet on PP) if not H1 transferrable, then I've to use EAD only.
2. Company B will ask me what papers I need for GC sponsorship either NOW or in FUTURE, can anybody know this? please help
3. I know that i need to file AC-21 to do the switch, what are the procedures like:
a. job position should be same or similar?
b. what paper work other than AC-21 needed to do this switch in changing employer information, fees for doing this change?
any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know.
1. Whether I can transfer my H1B (sponsored by company A) to company B when i join them? (but H1B is not stamped yet on PP) if not H1 transferrable, then I've to use EAD only.
2. Company B will ask me what papers I need for GC sponsorship either NOW or in FUTURE, can anybody know this? please help
3. I know that i need to file AC-21 to do the switch, what are the procedures like:
a. job position should be same or similar?
b. what paper work other than AC-21 needed to do this switch in changing employer information, fees for doing this change?
any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know.
hot Short emo hairstyles - boys
factoryman
02-08 09:16 PM
will anything be left even to discuss?
Guys. Is this 7% country limit a hard or soft one ?. Assuming 1,40,000 total immigrant visas, India would get 7% of it and that is 9800. Then you have the preference category. Assuming there are unused immigrant visas from other countries, how do they get allocated ?. Does anyone has clear idea ?.
Guys. Is this 7% country limit a hard or soft one ?. Assuming 1,40,000 total immigrant visas, India would get 7% of it and that is 9800. Then you have the preference category. Assuming there are unused immigrant visas from other countries, how do they get allocated ?. Does anyone has clear idea ?.
more...
house Short Emo Haircuts for Summer
ngopikrishnan
03-06 10:42 PM
I am wondering how do I help / sponsor to obtain US tourist visa (B2) for my young (say below 10 years) niece and nephew in India. Their parents (my brother and his wife) will not travel with them so they do not need a visa.
What is the procedure? What are the documents that I need to send from the US? What are the documents my brother in India need to provide?
Your elaborate response will be highly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
What is the procedure? What are the documents that I need to send from the US? What are the documents my brother in India need to provide?
Your elaborate response will be highly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
tattoo Emo hairstyles Gallery
Macaca
07-23 07:32 PM
Reid's Anti-Reform Maneuvers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072200881.html?nav=hcmodule) By Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/) Washington Post, July 23, 2007
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
more...
pictures hairstyles Cool Men Hairstyles
aim-high
08-14 08:48 AM
I have currently applied for GC under EB3. Got a new job offer in a different state and planning to take up the new job offer. For AC-21, what are the docs/forms required ?
Do I have to do anything special because I am moving to a different state ?
Do I have to do anything special because I am moving to a different state ?
dresses emo hairstyles male. emo
snojha
11-17 07:57 AM
Hello,
Recently I applied for AP. It was approved on Oct 20, 2009 but when I got the document from USCIS I found that the effective date of my AP is from 12/20/2009 to 12/19/2010. My question is,
1. I want to go to India on 26th Nov and return on 20th December. Some of my friend told me that I can travel between 12/20/2009 to 12/19/2010 not not before 12/20/2009. Is it correct.
2. My understanding was I can go to India before effective date which is 12/20/2009 and can return on or after 12/20/2009. Is this correct.
Please respond as I want to go to India on Nov 26th 2009 due to some emergency.
Thanks
Regards
Sachi
Recently I applied for AP. It was approved on Oct 20, 2009 but when I got the document from USCIS I found that the effective date of my AP is from 12/20/2009 to 12/19/2010. My question is,
1. I want to go to India on 26th Nov and return on 20th December. Some of my friend told me that I can travel between 12/20/2009 to 12/19/2010 not not before 12/20/2009. Is it correct.
2. My understanding was I can go to India before effective date which is 12/20/2009 and can return on or after 12/20/2009. Is this correct.
Please respond as I want to go to India on Nov 26th 2009 due to some emergency.
Thanks
Regards
Sachi
more...
makeup Male Emo Hairstyles Pictures
suni
02-07 02:45 PM
Does anybody are in similar thread?
girlfriend Emo Hairstyle
acharaniya
09-05 05:02 PM
Forgot to mention this is AOS case that was transferred. My AP renewal is still sitting in TSC.
hairstyles Good Emo Styles
sunny1000
11-22 01:15 AM
I need to apply for an extension for 3 more years, i get my first H1B from 10-04-2008 to 08-31 but i'm not sure about the process to extend my H1B, i dont now if i need re-enter in the visa lottery like the first time.
Extensions don't count against yearly cap numbers. So, you can apply for the extension 6 months before your current petition expiry (feb 2011).
Good luck!
Extensions don't count against yearly cap numbers. So, you can apply for the extension 6 months before your current petition expiry (feb 2011).
Good luck!
WeShallOvercome
08-01 05:19 PM
someone please delete the last poll I started with 2 options.. Should be only one in order to track the number of members who received RNs or got their checks cashed...
easygoer
08-06 07:05 AM
Can Anyone please help?
No comments:
Post a Comment