Blog Feeds
04-18 07:10 AM
22 Democratic Senators are urging President Obama to stop deporting young people who are likely to be eligible for legalization if the DREAM Act passes. The White House has so far rebuffed such requests with the not very believable excuse that it's hands are tied. That's simply not so and the President's executive authority to solve immigration problems Congress is ignoring has been well documented. Hopefully, the pressure will start to pay off.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/04/senate-dems-to-obama-stop-deporting-dream-act-kids.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/04/senate-dems-to-obama-stop-deporting-dream-act-kids.html)
wallpaper for David Cook#39;s upcoming
freddyCR
July 26th, 2005, 10:36 AM
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/freddyphoto/MISC/storm-1.jpg
Blog Feeds
04-12 08:20 AM
Thanks to Richard Reid, we all have the extra task of removing our shoes when we go through security at airports. The "shoe bomber" from England tried to set off a bomb hidden in his shoes ten years ago, but thanks in part to Canadian born, Trinidad raised Kwame James, Reid was unable to carry out his plan. James, at 6 foot 8 inches, was then a 22 year old basketball player. An astute flight attendant woke James up and got him to help subdue Reid. Both Reid and James were in the news this week, though for very different...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/immigrant-of-the-day-kwame-james-terrorist-fighter.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/immigrant-of-the-day-kwame-james-terrorist-fighter.html)
2011 for David Cook#39;s upcoming
wandmaker
11-16 02:03 AM
Her status is H1 from Oct 1, 2007 and H4 is invalid.
more...
BMWX5
04-19 07:57 AM
I saw a thread this morning about how to open a company when 485 pending, but I couldn't find it now. Anyone can help? great appreciate!
Do google with as many as keywords from that thread followed by immigration voice, you'll definitely get as long as that thread is still open.
Thats how I do.
Do google with as many as keywords from that thread followed by immigration voice, you'll definitely get as long as that thread is still open.
Thats how I do.
Macaca
08-05 08:12 AM
A Bad Deal Gets Worse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05sun2.html) August 5, 2007
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
more...
rakesh
04-29 12:13 AM
Hi
I am masters student graduating in June 2011. I got an offer from a big company and it already started h1b premium processing(applied on Mar 31). Now, I received an offer from my dream company and I didn't mention about h1-b processing and want to work for this company. I have few questions and need your suggestions.
1. Reject the first company offer. Not sure if I have to pay, because they applied for H1-B premium processing. How much I have to pay in this case? Can I continue working on OPT in this case?
2. Inform the second company about the first company h1-b processing. What can second company do, if H1-B is already processed? What can second company do, if H1-B is not processed?
Please suggest if there are better ways to handle the situation.
-- How long does it take to get H1-B visa under premium processing, if applied in 65000 pool?
Thanks
Rakesh
I am masters student graduating in June 2011. I got an offer from a big company and it already started h1b premium processing(applied on Mar 31). Now, I received an offer from my dream company and I didn't mention about h1-b processing and want to work for this company. I have few questions and need your suggestions.
1. Reject the first company offer. Not sure if I have to pay, because they applied for H1-B premium processing. How much I have to pay in this case? Can I continue working on OPT in this case?
2. Inform the second company about the first company h1-b processing. What can second company do, if H1-B is already processed? What can second company do, if H1-B is not processed?
Please suggest if there are better ways to handle the situation.
-- How long does it take to get H1-B visa under premium processing, if applied in 65000 pool?
Thanks
Rakesh
2010 David#39;s new album, This Loud
jasonmc86
07-26 09:29 PM
Hi There,
String directory = "E:\\pic\\";
// assuming your textbox name is textbox1
String pictureToDisplay = textbox1.Text;
System.Drawing.Image myImage = System.Drawing.Image.FromFile(directory + pictureToDisplay + ".jpg");
//You could use a picturebox and set the image = myImage;
pictureBox1.Image = myImage;
Hope this helps
Cheers
Jason
String directory = "E:\\pic\\";
// assuming your textbox name is textbox1
String pictureToDisplay = textbox1.Text;
System.Drawing.Image myImage = System.Drawing.Image.FromFile(directory + pictureToDisplay + ".jpg");
//You could use a picturebox and set the image = myImage;
pictureBox1.Image = myImage;
Hope this helps
Cheers
Jason
more...
Johnwalton
05-15 12:04 PM
Silverlight is the latest version of software.there are facing me some problem to use this like that,Seems like xml is not feeding in. Any pointers or suggested resources would be much helpful.
hair The album is amazing!
bond65
05-24 01:47 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
nkanchan
08-23 06:35 PM
Hi,
I need some clarification. One of my friend confued me.:confused:
My I-485 is filed (I-140 is already approved) by my lawyer.
I am traveling in Sep end returning in Oct End.
I have my H1-B extension with me and need to get it stamped in India.
As per my lawyer, she will file for EAD and AP after I come back. I am not sure what she ment then about the she has filed my application in July.
As per her there is no issue as she will file my EAD/AP after I come back.
Will this travel be an issue in my stamping in India and/or getting back in the US after stamping?
Please advice.
Thanks in advance.
I need some clarification. One of my friend confued me.:confused:
My I-485 is filed (I-140 is already approved) by my lawyer.
I am traveling in Sep end returning in Oct End.
I have my H1-B extension with me and need to get it stamped in India.
As per my lawyer, she will file for EAD and AP after I come back. I am not sure what she ment then about the she has filed my application in July.
As per her there is no issue as she will file my EAD/AP after I come back.
Will this travel be an issue in my stamping in India and/or getting back in the US after stamping?
Please advice.
Thanks in advance.
hot David Cook Reveals New Album
sirisha
06-19 07:30 PM
Hi: Need some inputs from the excperts in this group on using the priority dates from a different I140 filing.
Have the following 2 cases filed for the same person.
PD - Nov 2004 - EB3 - Labor Approved - I140 Filed
PD - Oct/Nov 2005 - EB2 - Labor Approved - I140 Approved
If we file I485 based on the I140 approved for EB2 case [which has a later PD], can we still send an update to USCIS later regarding Nov 2005 PD and use that PD once the I140 from the EB3 filing is approved? What's the best way to use the highest EB category and oldest PD in this case?
Thanks,
Sirisha
Have the following 2 cases filed for the same person.
PD - Nov 2004 - EB3 - Labor Approved - I140 Filed
PD - Oct/Nov 2005 - EB2 - Labor Approved - I140 Approved
If we file I485 based on the I140 approved for EB2 case [which has a later PD], can we still send an update to USCIS later regarding Nov 2005 PD and use that PD once the I140 from the EB3 filing is approved? What's the best way to use the highest EB category and oldest PD in this case?
Thanks,
Sirisha
more...
house David Cook to Perform #39;The
man-woman-and-gc
06-10 11:44 AM
I got my 140 approved and my 6 yr H1 gets over in Jan 2010.
Could someone tell me whn is the earliest I can apply for my 3 yr extension??
And is there a time period before you have to apply for the extension?
Thanks in Advance.
6 months before VISA expiration date.
Could someone tell me whn is the earliest I can apply for my 3 yr extension??
And is there a time period before you have to apply for the extension?
Thanks in Advance.
6 months before VISA expiration date.
tattoo David Cook to premiere video,
Blog Feeds
01-12 07:40 AM
The annual Consumer Electronics Show kicks off this week in Las Vegas. This is the gadget wonderland I've attended for the last several years. Due to my father's illness, I decided to skip this year's show. But I'm avidly watching online for announcements of the year's best new innovations. The show is put on by the Consumer Electronics Association and they've recently launched "The Innovation Movement" which seeks to encourage public policies that foster innovation and promote prosperity. The movement embraces a lot of issues and I'm pleased to see liberalizing immigration policies in the technology sector among the issues...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/consumer-electronic-association-warns-against-restricting-the-movement-of-global-talent.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/consumer-electronic-association-warns-against-restricting-the-movement-of-global-talent.html)
more...
pictures david cook cd release party.
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
dresses David Cook. This new album
psk79
07-19 09:14 PM
Hi, I have been noticing on .com that even after the mess-ups in Aug 08 when similar visa bulletin came out and uscis approved lots of cases from 06 ignoring people from 04 and 05, they are not approving cases in pd order even now (well not like before but still bad). I mean how can they approve sep 05 cases before all 03/2005 cases are approved especially if they are all pre-adj and ready (atleast most are). Even though technically anyone until oct 1, 2005 is eligible for visa number, Shouldn't they go in order? This is very unfair given you don't know when they might run out of numbers and TSC is snail paced doing 3-6 approvals a day atmost while NSC is doing tons a day :) Any comments?
more...
makeup Order David#39;s new album,
itsmesabby
12-11 11:04 AM
Hi All,
Would anyone know how much time does it take for one to get a new SSN ? If someone is coming from India, how much time they should wait after entering the US before they apply for the SSN ?
Thanks,
itsmesabby
Would anyone know how much time does it take for one to get a new SSN ? If someone is coming from India, how much time they should wait after entering the US before they apply for the SSN ?
Thanks,
itsmesabby
girlfriend David Cook#39;s Solo Album - All
fasterthanlight�
04-29 10:48 PM
Do as the title suggests.
hairstyles David Cook, returned to
sonylaw
07-31 04:51 PM
A quick question..
Can I use a personal check for I 485 application? Is it the preferred way?
Thanks,
Sony
Can I use a personal check for I 485 application? Is it the preferred way?
Thanks,
Sony
seeker
01-10 07:27 PM
Lets us call Cornyn and Reids office and ask them to reintroduce Skil (as an appropriation bills amendment). Lets do it guys.... CIR will never happen.
What does IV core think about this action plan?
What does IV core think about this action plan?
goel_ar
11-06 01:37 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20%28Left%20Nav%20Children%29/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.pdf
In above link, how is it possible to have pending I-485 (EB2) for 2008 & 2009 for India? If i remember correctly the priority date for India has reached upto Jul 2007 only so far.
could someone pl. educate me?
thanks,
In above link, how is it possible to have pending I-485 (EB2) for 2008 & 2009 for India? If i remember correctly the priority date for India has reached upto Jul 2007 only so far.
could someone pl. educate me?
thanks,
No comments:
Post a Comment