foobar2001
08-01 01:46 AM
thanks in advance!
wallpaper Selena Gomez and Justine
Blog Feeds
08-05 08:00 AM
Wingnut Alan Keyes says repealing the 14th Amendment is going too far. And lest wingnut readers of this blog (you know who you are) wave public opinion polls that seem to support this, I would remind you that the whole point of enshrining civil rights protections in the Constitution is precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If you would have put segregation up for a vote in my part of the world back in the 1950s, you would have found overwhelming support. The judge who tossed out the Proposition 8 referendum on same sex marriages in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/another-shark-jumping-sign.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/another-shark-jumping-sign.html)
TexDBoy
09-05 05:12 PM
Where is your I-140 approved from?
2011 selena gomez fashion and style
Blog Feeds
01-12 07:40 AM
While the media is obsessing over Harry Reid's embarrassing comments about President Obama, Politico reports on another juicy story reported in Game Change, the new book on the 2008 campaign: [McCain aides John] Weaver and [Mark] Salter begged McCain to ease up. He was already the face of the Iraq surge. Now he was becoming the face of what opponents called 'amnesty.' Just tone down the rhetoric, his advisers pleaded. McCain refused. He was disgusted by republicans in Congress and talk radio gasbags such as rush Limbaugh who bashed immigrants. 'They�re going to destroy the f**king party,' he would say....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/mccain-why-would-i-want-to-be-the-leader-of-a-party-of-such-aholes.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/mccain-why-would-i-want-to-be-the-leader-of-a-party-of-such-aholes.html)
more...
amnak
05-09 08:35 AM
hi
i have been offered a job at my current research centre where i worked as a student. I want to go back to my home country. The job can be done online and does not require physical presence in the USA. Will i still need an OPT? or can they employ me as an international worker? if they wmploy me as an international consultant then what are the ramifications for teh company? wht is the legal procedure? will they have to pay taxes more etc?
Please help
i have been offered a job at my current research centre where i worked as a student. I want to go back to my home country. The job can be done online and does not require physical presence in the USA. Will i still need an OPT? or can they employ me as an international worker? if they wmploy me as an international consultant then what are the ramifications for teh company? wht is the legal procedure? will they have to pay taxes more etc?
Please help
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
Cuban-born Emilio Estefan has been one of the most well-known residents of my home town of Miami since my childhood. He was a member of the famous band The Miami Sound Machine and in the years since he has become a highly successful Latin music producer in South Florida's music community. Estefan has been nominated for 28 Grammys over the years and won 14 times. He's also the husband of fellow band member Gloria Estefan. And he is the producer of well-known Latin music stars Marc Antony, Jennifer Lopez and Ricky Martin. And if life as a musician and producer...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/immigrant-of-the-day-emilio-estefan-musicianproducer.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/immigrant-of-the-day-emilio-estefan-musicianproducer.html)
more...
roseball
11-13 11:57 AM
What are the options when labor is being audited?
- Know the reason for audit
- Start a new process and make sure all the reasons from audit are covered under the new process
- When ready to file PERM, withdraw the old application and file a new PERM case
If you are not audited again, you will get the approval in less than 2 months.
- Know the reason for audit
- Start a new process and make sure all the reasons from audit are covered under the new process
- When ready to file PERM, withdraw the old application and file a new PERM case
If you are not audited again, you will get the approval in less than 2 months.
2010 Selena Gomez is putting her
eastindia
04-21 11:20 AM
Can someone ask their lawyers?
more...
andycool
10-25 01:13 PM
Hello Attorney,
I filed AP for me and my Dependent , Unfortunately USCIS just picked the application on the top of packet ( My Application ) and i got the receipt No , I dont know what happened to my Spouces Application her check is not cashed and no receipt no , I suppose her applicaiton is was just placed with my applicaiton and was considered as just one application .
Now what are my options , can i go ahead and file one more application , i know its literally impossible for me to call uscis and Track my wife's application , can i go and file a new application for my Spouse . Please advice.
Thanks
I filed AP for me and my Dependent , Unfortunately USCIS just picked the application on the top of packet ( My Application ) and i got the receipt No , I dont know what happened to my Spouces Application her check is not cashed and no receipt no , I suppose her applicaiton is was just placed with my applicaiton and was considered as just one application .
Now what are my options , can i go ahead and file one more application , i know its literally impossible for me to call uscis and Track my wife's application , can i go and file a new application for my Spouse . Please advice.
Thanks
hair girlfriend selena gomez
jonty_11
06-15 02:43 PM
join discussion on already existing thread please
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4998
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4998
more...
nhfirefighter13
March 20th, 2006, 07:23 PM
Very nice. Attractive subject.
hot Celeb Dresses – Selena Gomez
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
more...
house hair Selena Gomez Fashion
weilai
06-23 06:50 PM
My wife had a H1B working for company A from 08/2003 to 07/2005 (from I-94) and she filed another H1B application to work for company B in 05/2004. She got the notice, stopped working for company A and started working for company B. However, she never got the aprroval notice for the second H1B application. Actually this case is currently still pending. She worked for company B until 07/2005 which is the expiration date of the first H1B. She changed to F2 later in 07/2005. I was wondering if there is any problem about status or employment authorization for this period of time from 08/2003 to 07/2005.
tattoo selena gomez fashion and style. Celebrity Style: Selena Gomez
lazycis
01-09 11:59 AM
There is no special form to apply for AC21. It's a free form letter informing the USCIS that you would like to port your I-140 to a different employer.
more...
pictures house selena gomez fashion and style. selena gomez fashion style selena
looivy
05-06 09:58 PM
Gurus,
I wanted to see if anybody on a US visitor visa travelled from US (New York) to Canada and back on Amtrak. I have following questions.
1. Where do you surrender I-94 (at NY station or at the US border entering into Canada).
2. Amtrak's website does not say much about the entry to US in detail. If you can provide detail that would be very helpful. What if they do a detailed check on you and you miss the train, what are your options. I assume they give you a new I-94 at the US-Canada border when re-entering USA.
3. Any other useful information that you can provide will be helpful.
Thanks.
I wanted to see if anybody on a US visitor visa travelled from US (New York) to Canada and back on Amtrak. I have following questions.
1. Where do you surrender I-94 (at NY station or at the US border entering into Canada).
2. Amtrak's website does not say much about the entry to US in detail. If you can provide detail that would be very helpful. What if they do a detailed check on you and you miss the train, what are your options. I assume they give you a new I-94 at the US-Canada border when re-entering USA.
3. Any other useful information that you can provide will be helpful.
Thanks.
dresses hot sense that Selena Gomez is
IAMINQ
02-06 07:13 AM
samachar.com
rediff.com
timesofindia.com
chalomumbai.com
rediff.com
timesofindia.com
chalomumbai.com
more...
makeup dresses selena gomez fashion
SPAD3S
08-19 11:36 PM
yea not bad
girlfriend Selena Gomez
dkempaiah
10-30 04:46 PM
Hello
Am currently on F1 - OPT status (stem OPT). Been working as a volunteer intern for past few months. Currently one of start-up company is interested in hiring me but they do not have a legal department and also not enough resources to apply for H1B. I offered to pay for my H1B fees, but they have no idea how to go about this.
Can anyone please tell how do i go about this? What kind of lawyer should i approach , what information will i need from the company, how much money does all this involve.
The other option is start working for this company , get H1 done through a consultant and transfer the H1b, again this involves legal dept which neither me nor the company has any idea. Please advise .
My OPT is valid until Dec 2011.
Thanks
Dkemp
Am currently on F1 - OPT status (stem OPT). Been working as a volunteer intern for past few months. Currently one of start-up company is interested in hiring me but they do not have a legal department and also not enough resources to apply for H1B. I offered to pay for my H1B fees, but they have no idea how to go about this.
Can anyone please tell how do i go about this? What kind of lawyer should i approach , what information will i need from the company, how much money does all this involve.
The other option is start working for this company , get H1 done through a consultant and transfer the H1b, again this involves legal dept which neither me nor the company has any idea. Please advise .
My OPT is valid until Dec 2011.
Thanks
Dkemp
hairstyles tattoo tattoo selena gomez
milestogo
03-30 05:10 PM
Hello, could some one help to answer this question.
Can I work part time on EAD, while I-485 is pending, without loosing my status? What could be potential issues?
I want to go back to school and complete a master's degree.
Thanks
:)
Can I work part time on EAD, while I-485 is pending, without loosing my status? What could be potential issues?
I want to go back to school and complete a master's degree.
Thanks
:)
zCool
04-01 07:19 PM
No it should not matter.
TAL security checks are done at the time of Visa issuance.. COS you are already in
TAL security checks are done at the time of Visa issuance.. COS you are already in
fromnaija
01-13 02:34 PM
Because you already filed I-485 before she turned 21, your daughter is protected by CSPA and she will get her GC as long as your case is approved even if she turned 30 before your AOS is approved (I sincerely hope you are approved before she turns 30 as she must remain unmarried until she gets GC).
By the way, my son is in the same boat as he turned 21 in 2008 too.
By the way, my son is in the same boat as he turned 21 in 2008 too.
No comments:
Post a Comment