krish2005
07-09 03:04 PM
Not sure if this is a duplicate post of somebody earlier.
USCIS revised instructions for 131 and when you are on EAD and applying for advance parole
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/i131_biometrics_070808.pdf
USCIS revised instructions for 131 and when you are on EAD and applying for advance parole
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/i131_biometrics_070808.pdf
wallpaper Graffiti Alphabet : Letters
cubedflash
01-28 06:53 PM
Example:
www-med.stanford.edu/alum...Award.html (http://www-med.stanford.edu/alumni/sterlingAward.html)
Swift 3D Way:
-Break apart the text
-Rotate the individual letters
-Place in desired location
-Group and rotate object
You can also take the Swift 3D file into Flash and place the letter in the desired location.
-cubedflash
www-med.stanford.edu/alum...Award.html (http://www-med.stanford.edu/alumni/sterlingAward.html)
Swift 3D Way:
-Break apart the text
-Rotate the individual letters
-Place in desired location
-Group and rotate object
You can also take the Swift 3D file into Flash and place the letter in the desired location.
-cubedflash
bbenhill
08-27 12:22 PM
Hi, my friend have not receive her fingerprint, her husband filed for I-485 on june 2007. their PD is 2004-ROW. their case forwarded into TSC. do you think this is normal ? what is the possible solution for this issue ?
please help ..
Thx
please help ..
Thx
2011 Graffiti Alphabet Bubble Red
panacea
07-18 03:07 PM
But I don't know what will happen to an extension that you already received.......
more...
Blog Feeds
01-20 07:00 AM
My friend Cyrus Mehta reports on a disturbing incident that occurred last week at Newark's international airport. Apparently CBP officers got hold of the new Neufeld memorandum on H-1B workers at third party work sites and decided to start applying it on their own. Aside from being contrary to established procedures for revoking visas, CBP officers made inappropriate comments and issued threats that cry out for some form of disciplinary action by DHS: It is then no surprise that the outrageous singling out of Indians since the New Year waiting in the line at Newark and other airports by CBP...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/cbp-officers-targeting-indian-h1b-entrants.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/cbp-officers-targeting-indian-h1b-entrants.html)
kanshul
04-09 06:11 PM
I am in identical situation as you. send me a PM.
more...
BharatPremi
11-07 12:31 PM
:pif DOL == funeral house
then
USCIS == Frying Pan :)
then
USCIS == Frying Pan :)
2010 Graffiti Alphabet Bubble
Blog Feeds
09-27 10:50 AM
Most people have now heard about Stephen Colbert's testimony in front of the House Immigration Subcommittee this week on the subject of new laws for migrant farmworkers. Some have criticized the Committee for letting the comedian speak. I say, how high can the standards be if they let me testify? My friend Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy has a thoughtful piece explaining why the testimony was helpful. Here's the video link if you missed the testimony.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/colbert-speaks-the-truthiness.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/colbert-speaks-the-truthiness.html)
more...
sirram
07-18 02:41 PM
My labor is approved, but haven't received approval from immigration yet. Online status is showing it is 'CERTIFIED'. Can I file I-140/485 with just electronic confirmation of labor in case if it get delayed in receiving approval? Bwy does anybody have an idea in how many days immigration will dispatch the approval copy of labor after it is certified?
hair Graffiti Alphabet Bubble
ashres11
07-17 05:29 PM
To - Congress (Capitol Hill, DC)
Purpose - To address EB3 visa issue.
Purpose - To address EB3 visa issue.
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.
hot graffiti alphabet bubble
saileshjiandani
11-06 10:42 PM
Hi guys,
Please provide your valuable thoughts.
I have a Masters degree in the profession I'm working with 2 yrs of work exp prior to starting at this company. Altogether I have 5+ yrs of exp (prior + current).
My job requirements states "BA/BS or equivalent required with 5+ yrs of work exp".
I've read at some sites that if a candidate doesn't have a Masters degree, a Bachelor's + 5 yrs of exp will suffice, but the job description should require a Master's degree. In this case, I have a Master's degre with my job requirement saying "Bachelor's + 5yrs". Will I qualify for EB2? Please suggest.
Also what other options (tweaking requirements a bit) will you suggest?
Thanks,
Sailesh
Please provide your valuable thoughts.
I have a Masters degree in the profession I'm working with 2 yrs of work exp prior to starting at this company. Altogether I have 5+ yrs of exp (prior + current).
My job requirements states "BA/BS or equivalent required with 5+ yrs of work exp".
I've read at some sites that if a candidate doesn't have a Masters degree, a Bachelor's + 5 yrs of exp will suffice, but the job description should require a Master's degree. In this case, I have a Master's degre with my job requirement saying "Bachelor's + 5yrs". Will I qualify for EB2? Please suggest.
Also what other options (tweaking requirements a bit) will you suggest?
Thanks,
Sailesh
more...
house ALPHABET GRAFFITI : BUBBLE
lost
04-28 02:10 PM
What is the difference been EB2 Vs EB2 NIW and when does one qualify for NIW
tattoo Graffiti Alphabet Bubble
new_horizon
06-21 02:35 PM
Hi Michigan folks,
would appreciate some more responses from you. Only together we can do something. Wake up before it's too late. Thanks to those who emailed.
would appreciate some more responses from you. Only together we can do something. Wake up before it's too late. Thanks to those who emailed.
more...
pictures Graffiti Letters Alphabet
Blog Feeds
08-10 12:00 PM
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has said many times in the past that the GOP needs to move back to the middle on immigration reform. He's putting his money where his mouth is and is leading the GOP's pro-immigration wing as they work behind the scenes shaping the bill likely to be introduced in the next few weeks. The support of at least half a dozen Republican Senators will be critical since there will no doubt be Democrats who don't vote with their party.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/graham-likely-to-replace-mccain-as-gop-champion-of-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/graham-likely-to-replace-mccain-as-gop-champion-of-immigration-reform.html)
dresses Graffiti Alphabet Star Tags:
flash_padlac
05-05 11:42 AM
Check this out.........thats DARK ZEUS
VIEW it @ http://freewebs.com/neelvegas2/view.htm
VIEW it @ http://freewebs.com/neelvegas2/view.htm
more...
makeup tattoo graffiti alphabet
dontcareaboutGC
03-24 07:59 AM
If anyone is interested-Quite informative
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31352.pdf
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31352.pdf
girlfriend 3d graffiti alphabet bubble.
Blog Feeds
06-18 03:50 PM
It seems like ages since the federal government transformed the rules on when and how foreign citizens apply for visas to enter the United States. Actually, the most dramatic changes occurred in the summers of 2003 and 2004. In 2003, the government dramatically restricted the authority of American consular officers to waive the appearance of visa applicants for an in-person interview. In 2004, the U.S. State Department stopped "revalidating"(renewing previously issued but expired) nonimmigrant visas from a central processing facility in the United States. More changes have followed. Now all applicants must submit the visa application on-line (all the better...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/06/my-entry-1.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/06/my-entry-1.html)
hairstyles FREE GRAFFITI ALPHABETS
freddyCR
August 12th, 2005, 03:51 AM
1234http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/freddyphoto/MISC/IMG_6516-1BW.jpg
sidd
09-28 07:52 PM
?...?
desiap
02-04 11:03 PM
I was on F-1 when I applied for I-485 (my wife was the primary applicant). My I-20 expired 6 months back, and I'm working on EAD. I'm planning to travel to India and use my AP for return. Will that be fine ?
What about my I-94 expiry ? I still have a 2 yr old I-94 on my passport, marked F-1/D-S.
What about my I-94 expiry ? I still have a 2 yr old I-94 on my passport, marked F-1/D-S.
Did you know that that you can make money by locking special areas of your blog or site?
ReplyDeleteTo begin just join AdWorkMedia and run their Content Locking tool.