nat23
11-17 01:43 PM
I'm aware of the fact the SKIL Bill has been introduced both in the House and the Senate but it has been coupled with the CIR in the Senate.
If the CIR dies or is pushed out till 2009, what are the chances of SKIL bill being taken up for discussion?
If you look at the priority dates , they are moving along quite smoothly for rest of the world except India.
This scenario concerns me.
When people say the immigration system is broken they mean illegal immigrants. Only a few who understand and know the immigration system closely know that its broken with respect to legal immigrants also.
If the CIR dies or is pushed out till 2009, what are the chances of SKIL bill being taken up for discussion?
If you look at the priority dates , they are moving along quite smoothly for rest of the world except India.
This scenario concerns me.
When people say the immigration system is broken they mean illegal immigrants. Only a few who understand and know the immigration system closely know that its broken with respect to legal immigrants also.
wallpaper Vanessa Hudgens Complains Her
txh1b
04-15 10:46 AM
What took you sooo long to wake up from the slumber and realize that you need to get paid? Look up WH4 and complain to DOL. Look for the contents in the Neufield memo as well.
jliechty
January 4th, 2005, 11:25 PM
The selective coloration of this one works well, IMHO.
2011 Vanessa Hudgens Lands Herself
chunky
07-26 03:14 PM
Lawyer told that after AOS filing one is in dual status so no worry. But I am not 100 % sure
more...
guchi472000
03-18 04:27 PM
I Have my EAD card but my spouse was in India when i applied for EAD. That mean she doesn't have EAD card rite now.
Can she get EAD or SSN?
Pls help.....
Can she get EAD or SSN?
Pls help.....
avi_ny
03-09 04:11 PM
What is FOIA?
Dear members,
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
.....
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
Dear members,
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
.....
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
more...
Munna Bhai
01-09 12:54 PM
which service center? You can ask your employer to ask USCIS as 140 is employer's application.
Can anyone tell me, is this common wait time and what more i can do.
Can anyone tell me, is this common wait time and what more i can do.
2010 Vanessa Hudgens House #1
HumJumboHathuJumbo
10-08 03:25 PM
How long will it to get green card for my parents.I am a US Citizen and filed I-130,I-485 in sept first week.they have finger printing scheduled for next week.Please share your experience if you have sponsored your parents too.
Can anyone tell me how to start a thread please.sorry for posting in this thread.:)
Can anyone tell me how to start a thread please.sorry for posting in this thread.:)
more...
vivache
09-21 05:42 PM
"Top on IV's goals is 'ability to file for I-485' even when visa number is not available. As you perhaps know this will enable securing an EAD. Hope this answers your question."
Unintelligent question :).
What time frame do we expect this to kick in .. if it does?
(I know you can't give a definite date .. but just curious)
Also how optimistic are we (IV lawyers) of getting this one in? (good chance, medium chance ..)
Unintelligent question :).
What time frame do we expect this to kick in .. if it does?
(I know you can't give a definite date .. but just curious)
Also how optimistic are we (IV lawyers) of getting this one in? (good chance, medium chance ..)
hair vanessa hudgens house
a1b2c3
12-19 11:39 AM
If you think you displaced some americans, please give back their jobs and leave the country.:rolleyes:. Your GC status need not stop you from doing so.
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
Not before you give yours back. you are a temp anyways. you don't even have to surrender your gc.
more...
rameshvaid
05-27 10:46 AM
Talk to your Local "state" Congressman(woman)/Senator.
I will certainly do that..
RV..
I will certainly do that..
RV..
hot in. zac
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
house Vanessa#39;s house at Design
Photoman
March 26th, 2004, 08:22 AM
I have just joined this forum and collected my D70 last night. Used for the first time tonight took about 200 photo's with my SB-80DX flash.
I had to use camera on A or S priority with flash set on Auto. Quite a backward step after TTL metering with the F100.
The only Nikon flashes which provide full interaction with the D70 are the SB-800 & SB-600. Only these provide auto zoom head function, ISO from camera and TTL metering.
Hope this helps.PM
SB-26 will be a problem. You cannot use TTL flash mode with any Nikon digital camera. It would be like going back to an old thyristor auto flash. Only the DX series flashes work with the digitals.
I had to use camera on A or S priority with flash set on Auto. Quite a backward step after TTL metering with the F100.
The only Nikon flashes which provide full interaction with the D70 are the SB-800 & SB-600. Only these provide auto zoom head function, ISO from camera and TTL metering.
Hope this helps.PM
SB-26 will be a problem. You cannot use TTL flash mode with any Nikon digital camera. It would be like going back to an old thyristor auto flash. Only the DX series flashes work with the digitals.
tattoo Vanessa Hudgens.
gcnotfiledyet
03-27 01:53 AM
I don't know if these points are written as a joke. Technically H1B's are guest workers. If there is no work, they need not be here. "...Don't send RFE to those on EAD...", seems to tell don't do your job of checking whatever you are supposed to check before admitting a new immigrant.
Best thing is do nothing, just wait and hope for the best. Any actions are not likely to favour immigration or speedup GC granting, as these are not favoured in difficult economic times.
I agree about your comment on guest workers. But h1bs are also human beings. Rather than treating them like car imported from Japan treat them humane. Don't just think of h1bs as a number. There is a human being behind them. Its not easy to just uproot everything you have since last 10yrs and move back to where you came. This is not a treatment for a "guest".
Also how humane is this for a country touting horn of human rights all over the world (read Tibet/China)?
Best thing is do nothing, just wait and hope for the best. Any actions are not likely to favour immigration or speedup GC granting, as these are not favoured in difficult economic times.
I agree about your comment on guest workers. But h1bs are also human beings. Rather than treating them like car imported from Japan treat them humane. Don't just think of h1bs as a number. There is a human being behind them. Its not easy to just uproot everything you have since last 10yrs and move back to where you came. This is not a treatment for a "guest".
Also how humane is this for a country touting horn of human rights all over the world (read Tibet/China)?
more...
pictures dollar Hollywood house,
Joey Foley
May 16th, 2005, 07:58 PM
So far, I think I'm going to pick four to send in.
Man, I wish that dust of dirt or whatever it is wasn't on there.
I might give it a other try.:confused:
Man, I wish that dust of dirt or whatever it is wasn't on there.
I might give it a other try.:confused:
dresses Vanessa Hudgens: House of
Pegasus503
07-13 03:35 AM
Damn I am going to be pissed off if he gets a green card before I do.
more...
makeup Seeing Vanessa Hudgens-
Ψ
06-09 06:52 PM
there finally got it...after soo many tries....
girlfriend vanessa-hudgens-picks-up-zac-
Joey Foley
May 17th, 2005, 06:55 AM
There are several spots in the Indy area where you can get such a perspective. One with easy access is high atop Crown Hill cemetary (i.e., the James Whitcomb Riley hilltop gravesite). Sunrise or sunset would be your best bet unless you hit on a really crystal-clear day with no midday haze. You might find something close to what you are after around 16th and Georgetown road, too ;)
Awesome idea!
Anymore idea anyone while I'm out and about on my day off?;)
Awesome idea!
Anymore idea anyone while I'm out and about on my day off?;)
hairstyles hairstyles in. zac-efron-vanessa-hudgens- pictures of vanessa hudgens house.
komaragiri
07-28 12:18 PM
My prediction for this year..
EB1 = Current
EB2 = Jan 2003 (Because of BEC cases coming out, chance for them to file I-485 in October)
EB3 = U
EB1 = Current
EB2 = Jan 2003 (Because of BEC cases coming out, chance for them to file I-485 in October)
EB3 = U
chanduv23
07-31 11:08 AM
Changing employers on EAD after 180 days, this is what I heard
We need to update the 485 file by sending in the following documents
(1) Last paystub of previous employer
(2) New employment letter
(3) First paystub of current employer
You can be without getting paid in between jobs but may have to be quick. A lot of people when they decide to change jobss on EAD, take a vacation from work for a month or so, come back and work for the last paystub and then move to a new job.
Can you do multiple jobs and start ur business on EAD ? I don;'t know, maybe someone else could answer this
We need to update the 485 file by sending in the following documents
(1) Last paystub of previous employer
(2) New employment letter
(3) First paystub of current employer
You can be without getting paid in between jobs but may have to be quick. A lot of people when they decide to change jobss on EAD, take a vacation from work for a month or so, come back and work for the last paystub and then move to a new job.
Can you do multiple jobs and start ur business on EAD ? I don;'t know, maybe someone else could answer this
alwayson
09-06 11:50 AM
How about even a much better solution, learn your country's national language......:)
No comments:
Post a Comment