spicy_guy
04-07 11:49 AM
Tech firms warn of impacts of tight visa quota - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tech-firms-warn-of-impacts-of-tight-visa-quota-2011-04-07?siteid=rss&rss=1)
wallpaper art nouveau flowers tattoos. Hibiscus flower tattoos
hitpauler
04-21 12:37 PM
Gurus,
I went to infopass today. Last time when I went infopass in Oct 08, I was told that my namecheck is pending. I wanted to see whether any progress has been made on that,so took an infopass. When I asked the IO about the status of my namecheck, I was told that one namecheck is clear but the other is pending. I specifically asked her to look by my A # as I thought she might be referring to dependants namecheck status. But she replied back stating that there could be multiple namechecks for an individual and it is not unusual for some individuals to have three, four namechecks. And in my case as one of them is clear, they probably will go with cleared one.
Now I am confused. Can there be multiple namechecks initiated at around the same timeframe? I was told both the namechecks were initiated in 07.
I went to infopass today. Last time when I went infopass in Oct 08, I was told that my namecheck is pending. I wanted to see whether any progress has been made on that,so took an infopass. When I asked the IO about the status of my namecheck, I was told that one namecheck is clear but the other is pending. I specifically asked her to look by my A # as I thought she might be referring to dependants namecheck status. But she replied back stating that there could be multiple namechecks for an individual and it is not unusual for some individuals to have three, four namechecks. And in my case as one of them is clear, they probably will go with cleared one.
Now I am confused. Can there be multiple namechecks initiated at around the same timeframe? I was told both the namechecks were initiated in 07.
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
2011 fairy butterfly flower tattoos
skagitswimmer
June 19th, 2005, 08:50 AM
Interesting. I haven't calibrated mine yet - I'm waiting for my new printer and then will do them both together (or I may replace the monitor too). On mine current one it looks fine - lots of detail and highlights in the area that was blacked out before. It is certainly a difference between monitors and also probably a bit of personal preference. Here is another version reducing the intensity of the FM shadow reduction which does give a washed out look if overdone. The first one used an intensity of 5. this one uses a three.
By the way - do you use autofocus when shooting on the 500 + 1.4 TC? I am trying out a 1.4tc now on my 1-400Lis. While it gives TTL metering there is no autofocus with the tc.
By the way - do you use autofocus when shooting on the 500 + 1.4 TC? I am trying out a 1.4tc now on my 1-400Lis. While it gives TTL metering there is no autofocus with the tc.
more...
sanjeev_2004
10-04 02:03 PM
Saeed,
I 140 can processed through premioum process from last week.
Can you tell what was state of filing your GC labor. My company filed from IL in july 2004 in EB2-RIR case. My Labor is still in process. Though I got 45 days latter in March.
sanjeev
I 140 can processed through premioum process from last week.
Can you tell what was state of filing your GC labor. My company filed from IL in july 2004 in EB2-RIR case. My Labor is still in process. Though I got 45 days latter in March.
sanjeev
logiclife
05-10 01:07 PM
Friends,
If I was within 3 hours of driving distance from downtown DC(like VA, PA, DE, MD) then I would leave early from work a couple of hours to attend this event. Some members are flying from Seattle, Nevada, Florida and other are driving from NY, NJ etc.
It would be worth your time to hear first hand from Immigration Voice, something that has been much desired by many members when they want to know the future direction and current prospects. Plus you would know other IV members in DC area with whom you can co-ordinate in the future.
So, although this event is on monday due to scheduling reasons, its worth leaving work a couple of hours early if that's what it takes to make it here.
If you make a decision, here is the RSVP email again(we need head count for planning).
RSVP:
jay@immigrationvoice.org
info@immigrationvoice.org
If I was within 3 hours of driving distance from downtown DC(like VA, PA, DE, MD) then I would leave early from work a couple of hours to attend this event. Some members are flying from Seattle, Nevada, Florida and other are driving from NY, NJ etc.
It would be worth your time to hear first hand from Immigration Voice, something that has been much desired by many members when they want to know the future direction and current prospects. Plus you would know other IV members in DC area with whom you can co-ordinate in the future.
So, although this event is on monday due to scheduling reasons, its worth leaving work a couple of hours early if that's what it takes to make it here.
If you make a decision, here is the RSVP email again(we need head count for planning).
RSVP:
jay@immigrationvoice.org
info@immigrationvoice.org
more...
hello
04-14 12:36 PM
Hope we can get more people here.
2010 art nouveau flowers tattoos. flower tattoos on spine.
Motivated
10-26 01:38 PM
Irrespective of political parties or the issues, I am proud of this Indian guy standing up against "fair and balanced fox news"
he must be a citizen (since he is chairman of Milwaukee, WI, Dem party) - wonder if IV members from the area could approach him to stand up for us too..........
Fox News Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/fox-news-wisconsin-democrats_n_774164.html)
he must be a citizen (since he is chairman of Milwaukee, WI, Dem party) - wonder if IV members from the area could approach him to stand up for us too..........
Fox News Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/fox-news-wisconsin-democrats_n_774164.html)
more...
gcpadmavyuh
08-21 11:22 AM
Where did you file, TSC/NSC?
Please see above
Please see above
hair art nouveau flowers tattoos. hawaiian flower tattoos.
nozerd
09-07 10:09 AM
For LI you need to have worked with foreign company for at least 1 yr. I have worked for ABC USA for 7 yrs but not ABC Canada yet. I think for L1 I should work for ABC Canada for more than 1 yr.
Also when is the next lawyers call ? The last one it says was scheduled for 9/1 and its transcript is not posted. I would like to put this question to the lawyer.
Also when is the next lawyers call ? The last one it says was scheduled for 9/1 and its transcript is not posted. I would like to put this question to the lawyer.
more...
monikainusa
03-22 10:48 AM
Thanks Sac-e-ten,
My husband will talk to lawyer soon ....but he's very depressed and me too...what are the options do we have ...do we need to file appeal through lawyer ...my company is not showing any interests. Sir ..please advise..ur help will be highly appreciated...
My husband will talk to lawyer soon ....but he's very depressed and me too...what are the options do we have ...do we need to file appeal through lawyer ...my company is not showing any interests. Sir ..please advise..ur help will be highly appreciated...
hot art nouveau flowers tattoos.
NNReddy
04-01 04:42 PM
Did you port it thru same employer or a different employer?
more...
house Art Nouveau Flowers Tattoo
Dhundhun
10-24 01:55 PM
Rates vary for 4 months, 6 months and 1 year return tickets. Decide as per your convenience.
Why someone would give red dot for this?
I think, site is being attacked by terrorists, want to annoy everyone. Admins, find out guys and take appropriate actions.
Why someone would give red dot for this?
I think, site is being attacked by terrorists, want to annoy everyone. Admins, find out guys and take appropriate actions.
tattoo art nouveau flowers tattoos.
test101
07-18 11:04 PM
Can I file I-131 after filing for I-485? or does it have to be done at the same time?
thanks
thanks
more...
pictures art nouveau flowers tattoos.
ghost
02-07 03:13 PM
Hi
I clicked on the link provided but unfortunately I was not able to watch the video, can you please share what was concluded at the end of the session, any measures that they plan to take?
Thx
It's a long discussion but the summary in the last 2-3 mins suggests that
a) the temporary worker visas issue should not be tied to backlog reduction issue
b) other countries like canada and australia have already changed their immigration policies for high-skilled immigrants and US is falling behind
c) that the US government needs to provide clarity on the GC process one way or the other instead of keeping us in limbo
d) interesting observation by canadian economics lady professor - clearing the immigration backlog is the only immigration reform that is needed for US economy.
You've to understand that this is just a panel discussion and they can only make recommendations for execution by the politicians...they themselves cannot take any measures to resolve the issues.
Next steps are for us to support IV Advocacy (see separate threads for the April Advocacy) and lobby hard for the necessary legislative changes...this is a good presentation that can be used to to lobby for a piecemeal legislation/amendment for legal immigrant backlog reduction!
I clicked on the link provided but unfortunately I was not able to watch the video, can you please share what was concluded at the end of the session, any measures that they plan to take?
Thx
It's a long discussion but the summary in the last 2-3 mins suggests that
a) the temporary worker visas issue should not be tied to backlog reduction issue
b) other countries like canada and australia have already changed their immigration policies for high-skilled immigrants and US is falling behind
c) that the US government needs to provide clarity on the GC process one way or the other instead of keeping us in limbo
d) interesting observation by canadian economics lady professor - clearing the immigration backlog is the only immigration reform that is needed for US economy.
You've to understand that this is just a panel discussion and they can only make recommendations for execution by the politicians...they themselves cannot take any measures to resolve the issues.
Next steps are for us to support IV Advocacy (see separate threads for the April Advocacy) and lobby hard for the necessary legislative changes...this is a good presentation that can be used to to lobby for a piecemeal legislation/amendment for legal immigrant backlog reduction!
dresses Small Flower Tattoos
vinabath
03-26 11:09 AM
0%
more...
makeup Flower Tattoo on Arm black
baladev
05-04 09:58 AM
Here is the link for sending email to senators
http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Dev
http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Dev
girlfriend Art Nouveau. Candy.
manja
06-29 03:13 PM
Thanks. Hmm...I was not aware of this 30 days rule. I'll check with the insurance companies....otherwise I'm in trouble :)
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
hairstyles Tattoos Art Nouveau
return_to_india
01-19 04:42 PM
In this land where honey and milk flows, i always have that anxiety of loosing ( by virtue of lay off ) 'affordable' health care coverage and i haven't fully read what all fine-print stuff BlueCross Prudent Buyer plan have. And i do have a chronic condition. Currently the monthly premium is around $500 for the 3 member family.
desi3933
03-04 11:50 AM
Well - we all know this but if the question is "Do you have a Green Card? Yes or No ?" if you give the above answer, you have not provided a specific answer.
.....
>> Do you have a Green Card?
This is not a legal question. If question is posted on web-site, that can be reported.
Like in said my earlier post, employer can not ask for kind of employment authorization.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.....
>> Do you have a Green Card?
This is not a legal question. If question is posted on web-site, that can be reported.
Like in said my earlier post, employer can not ask for kind of employment authorization.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
antihero
11-26 01:15 PM
You won't have any issue with Indian Emigration officials in India. They are well aware of advanced parole as a means of entry to US.
Thanks for encouraging words. So can you confirm that the reentry to US does not require any other visa if one is carrying I-485 receipt and AP?
Also, can somebody who traveled in such a share the experience with me?
Thanks for encouraging words. So can you confirm that the reentry to US does not require any other visa if one is carrying I-485 receipt and AP?
Also, can somebody who traveled in such a share the experience with me?
Did you know that that you can earn cash by locking special sections of your blog / website?
ResponderEliminarTo start you need to join AdWorkMedia and implement their Content Locking tool.