B+ve
04-10 05:56 PM
Hi There,
My 485 application is pending at TSC on EB3 category, country of chargebility is Inida. Yesterday my PERM labor approved on EB2 category and need to apply 140 to recapture my own EB3 PD.
My employer will come under NSC. if the PD recaptured, I will be hardly one month away from my priority date to be current, as per the current visa bulletin dates.
1) So can you please provide some suggestion to which Service Center will be opt for filing EB2 140 now, in order for getting an optimal or faster process for 140 and eventually 485?
2) Does the service center really matters as it will take a very long time for me to get greened?
3) Is it worth waiting for couple of month's visa bulletin, to see whether the EB2 I dates are moving so that I can use some streamline process to process 140 and 485 together?
Thanks,
B+ve.
My 485 application is pending at TSC on EB3 category, country of chargebility is Inida. Yesterday my PERM labor approved on EB2 category and need to apply 140 to recapture my own EB3 PD.
My employer will come under NSC. if the PD recaptured, I will be hardly one month away from my priority date to be current, as per the current visa bulletin dates.
1) So can you please provide some suggestion to which Service Center will be opt for filing EB2 140 now, in order for getting an optimal or faster process for 140 and eventually 485?
2) Does the service center really matters as it will take a very long time for me to get greened?
3) Is it worth waiting for couple of month's visa bulletin, to see whether the EB2 I dates are moving so that I can use some streamline process to process 140 and 485 together?
Thanks,
B+ve.
wallpaper create a 1950s hairstyle
kirupa
08-07 12:01 PM
I really like your pig and police stamps the most :) I've added those up!
KALIDAS
03-10 02:31 PM
If you can get to the soft copy of the checks usually provided by most of the banks, you can find the receipt number on the rear/back side of the check.
2011 1950 S Hairstyles
jasonpark
August 17th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Monarch
more...
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.
seeker
09-14 12:58 PM
I am planning to visit India for a10 days in October. I have a valid h1b status till 2010 which I thinking of getting stamped at new delhi. But it seems the PIMS verification delay is making people wait for weeks and months. I have an AP which I can use to enter as an alternative. But I wanted to know if anyone had experience in stamping at the delhi consulate? Do they keep the passport if it is send for PIMS verification? In that case I'll drop the idea of getting it stamped and use my AP (though I want to avoid doing that snce I want to maintain my h1b status).
more...
sapota
08-30 11:39 AM
Canada gives 50% credit for stay in canada using legal visa, prior to obtaining PR towards citizenship.
Thats great in my book if US implements similar. I already accumulated enough stay.:p But I am only being selfish. :rolleyes:
Thats great in my book if US implements similar. I already accumulated enough stay.:p But I am only being selfish. :rolleyes:
2010 entertainment, 1950s+
Blog Feeds
08-29 08:20 PM
On August 20, John Morton, the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), released a memorandum entitled "Guidance Regarding the Handling of Removal Proceedings of Aliens with Pending or Approved Application or Petitions". The memorandum applies to persons in removal proceedings who meet the following criteria: The alien must be the subject of an application or petition with USCISto include a current priority date, if required, for adjustment of status; The alien appears eligible for relief as a matter of law and in the exercise of discretion; The alien must present a completed "Application to Register Permanent...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/08/time-for-ice-memo-critics-to-chill.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/08/time-for-ice-memo-critics-to-chill.html)
more...
anilsal
06-23 01:26 PM
english_august is the leader. Please wait for sometime. You are on IL chapter list also.
hair How To Do 1950s Hairstyles
gc2
09-29 07:20 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13697
more...
hopesoon
05-28 01:02 PM
Thanka a lot for your answer
hot 1950s hairstyle. 1950s+hairstyles+for+long+
a_to_z_gc
06-14 07:54 PM
No that's not the case, there are stringent reqmts for proof of Date of Birth. Passport is not one of them...
Please check other forums where this has been discussed..
I think a passport can be used to show the birth date.
Please check other forums where this has been discussed..
I think a passport can be used to show the birth date.
more...
house TAGS: celebrity hairstyles|
anuh1
12-28 04:28 PM
Thank You for the valuable information.
tattoo fifties hairstyles.
scorpion
01-23 03:59 PM
I think once you use EAD; you will no longer in H status.
more...
pictures 1950#39;s Hair and Clothes
ssksubash
02-14 06:19 PM
HI,
I am in my 7th yr extension of H1B, last time I got the stamping in Ottawa in 2005. I cam e into US on F1 and never got H1B stamping in India. Am I eligible for H1B stamping in Canada for my 8th year or should I go to India to get the stamping done.
Any information is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
I am in my 7th yr extension of H1B, last time I got the stamping in Ottawa in 2005. I cam e into US on F1 and never got H1B stamping in India. Am I eligible for H1B stamping in Canada for my 8th year or should I go to India to get the stamping done.
Any information is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
dresses tattoo 1950s: Beehive Hair 1950s hairstyle. 1950s Hairstyles For Men
newbie2020
01-21 02:15 PM
the LCA needs to be done for any H1B or when the job is in a new location. it doesn't take long to get that submitted (<1 day) no need to go stamping. it doesn't cost any money to submit a new LCA
more...
makeup to the ends of the hair.
lifestrikes
05-17 12:18 PM
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is trying again to get the DREAM Act passed, re-introducing the measure on Wednesday to let some immigrant students in the U.S. illegally stay in the country. Durbin, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and others will be on the bill.
Last December, after passing the House (then under Democratic control) the measure fell five votes short in the Senate and Durbin vowed to keep trying. The Durbin press conference comes a day after President Obama boosted the DREAM Act in an immigration speech in Texas, along the U.S./Mexico border where he called for various reforms.
When Durbin starts an issue, he stays with it. On Sept. 10, 2001, Durbin launched his fight to allow students of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. at a press conference in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood. The DREAM Act became part of a larger national debate on the hot button, divisive immigration issue.
Last December, after passing the House (then under Democratic control) the measure fell five votes short in the Senate and Durbin vowed to keep trying. The Durbin press conference comes a day after President Obama boosted the DREAM Act in an immigration speech in Texas, along the U.S./Mexico border where he called for various reforms.
When Durbin starts an issue, he stays with it. On Sept. 10, 2001, Durbin launched his fight to allow students of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. at a press conference in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood. The DREAM Act became part of a larger national debate on the hot button, divisive immigration issue.
girlfriend 1950s hairstyle pictures.
Pram777
08-27 10:36 AM
My PD is Jun 2008 and my I140 is approved in April 2009 in EB2. My employer and lawyer did not give me any paperwork regarding Labor or I140 so I know details about Ad, Job Title or Description and stuff like that. If I want to transfer my H1 and keep the Priority Date, how can I know these details. Will it be a problem if I dont have these details.
Thank you
Thank you
hairstyles hot 1950s hairstyle for men
mifan
06-05 11:36 PM
Last year I signed affidavit of support forms for my parents and they are already got their immigrant visa. One of my friends needs my help to sign affidavit of support for his brother. My question is how many affidavit of supports one can sign for different people? What are my liabilities if his brother later do some thing wrong in USA?
Thanks
Thanks
Kowsik9002
04-18 04:17 PM
My cousin is a GC holder and plans to bring wife, who is indian citizen here to U.S., please tell me how long it will take, what applications to apply for and such. Thanks you.
Kowsik
Kowsik
rickJ@dcd
05-12 11:32 PM
This stamp is letting you know, no matter how far from us you are we love you and have an eye out for your return :crazy:kirupaStamp
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario