speddi
10-05 07:06 PM
Speddi
which serivce center are your applications pending with?
mine is at Texas Service Center
which serivce center are your applications pending with?
mine is at Texas Service Center
wallpaper pon and zi: arent, cute,
telekinesis
09-05 07:58 PM
The main image in your homepage Ryall is almost 300KB, thats huge!!! My entire splash page is about 55KB and it involves 3ds max renders and hell of a lot of layers...it will take a bit to load for modem users (I pray for them everyday) and if you have any content that 300KB will matter when it comes to a user wanting to visit ur site again, oh yea I fixed my splash cause I changed an image on my server and it screwed with the dimensions so here is the update:
Splash Update:
http://www.macromotive.com/ebay/dalu/da_splash.htm
Splash Update:
http://www.macromotive.com/ebay/dalu/da_splash.htm
nixstor
03-05 03:19 PM
I guess that's how much they value the American Dream, so let it be, I'll pay that price, no prob.
Fine by me if they do offer some SLA. That's always been missing. Thats what I exactly pointed out in my comment. If they were to return my money back if they do not meet their SLA, no one will have issues. or just have PP for almost everything and give equal importance to people who either value time or money.
Fine by me if they do offer some SLA. That's always been missing. Thats what I exactly pointed out in my comment. If they were to return my money back if they do not meet their SLA, no one will have issues. or just have PP for almost everything and give equal importance to people who either value time or money.
2011 Azuzephre#39;s Pon and Zi
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
ashkam
11-26 01:16 PM
Hi Guys,
I am an EB category GC applicant. I am living in US on AOS pending status and working on EAD. I don't have any other legal status in US. My previous H1 expired long back. I also changed my company after filing I-485.
I am thinking of visiting India now. I will be carrying my I-485 receipt and my AP for this travel. My question is, can I face any difficulty while boarding a flight in India since I do not have any valid visa stamp for US in my passport? If I remember well the immigration counter in India also verifies a person's visa before letting him/her proceed on the journey.
Also, can anybody foresee any problems while reentering at the US immigration checkpoint in such a case?
Can somebody who traveled outside US on just I-485 receipt and AP share their experience with me?
You don't even need the I-485 receipt. Just the AP is enough. However, what you do need to check for is if the airline you're boarding has a changeover stop and if you need a transit visa because many airlines like BA require a transit visa if you're entering the US on an AP.
I am an EB category GC applicant. I am living in US on AOS pending status and working on EAD. I don't have any other legal status in US. My previous H1 expired long back. I also changed my company after filing I-485.
I am thinking of visiting India now. I will be carrying my I-485 receipt and my AP for this travel. My question is, can I face any difficulty while boarding a flight in India since I do not have any valid visa stamp for US in my passport? If I remember well the immigration counter in India also verifies a person's visa before letting him/her proceed on the journey.
Also, can anybody foresee any problems while reentering at the US immigration checkpoint in such a case?
Can somebody who traveled outside US on just I-485 receipt and AP share their experience with me?
You don't even need the I-485 receipt. Just the AP is enough. However, what you do need to check for is if the airline you're boarding has a changeover stop and if you need a transit visa because many airlines like BA require a transit visa if you're entering the US on an AP.
rb_248
07-23 10:54 AM
Are we supposed to get every year?? did ur friend apply EAD renewal online ?
Not yet. Our attorney is doing it for us.
Not yet. Our attorney is doing it for us.
more...
snathan
02-01 09:35 PM
Q. Who is an optimist?
A. A dude on EB3 with priority date of Aug 2005, looking for a "safe secure" future :D
Joking aside dude, Pay off your debts, buy gold for the wife ( investing in the wife may be the surest way to have a safe secure future lol)), keep some CDs, keep handy cash ( a tleast 6 months of pay), good life insurance, medical insurance, max out 401K, and then if you still have some left you can dabble in stocks.
How come a wife can have another wife...:D if you are not aware the OP is a girl.
You didnt tell which movie cd...?
A. A dude on EB3 with priority date of Aug 2005, looking for a "safe secure" future :D
Joking aside dude, Pay off your debts, buy gold for the wife ( investing in the wife may be the surest way to have a safe secure future lol)), keep some CDs, keep handy cash ( a tleast 6 months of pay), good life insurance, medical insurance, max out 401K, and then if you still have some left you can dabble in stocks.
How come a wife can have another wife...:D if you are not aware the OP is a girl.
You didnt tell which movie cd...?
2010 Pon and Zi Collection by Jeff
Milind123
07-27 04:20 PM
Your lawyer is correct. Until you get a negative response for your MTR you can work.
more...
number30
11-18 08:13 PM
Did that H1B got approved later?
hair pon and zi: and, emo, kids,
anilsal
08-21 11:54 AM
bumping up??
The attorney gets a copy of the FP notice also. They can forward it to you.
Would it be too much to ask, now that you are happy that your checks are cashed, to show some appreciation for IV by performing tasks at the state chapter level?
Since I lead the IL state chapter, do you want to help out now that you are in Chicagoland region?
The attorney gets a copy of the FP notice also. They can forward it to you.
Would it be too much to ask, now that you are happy that your checks are cashed, to show some appreciation for IV by performing tasks at the state chapter level?
Since I lead the IL state chapter, do you want to help out now that you are in Chicagoland region?
more...
HRPRO
03-07 12:32 PM
That is not correct. Even if employer revokes it, the PD is good. The only time you will loss PD is if CIS revokes it due to fraud.
Krish,
I did not mention that the PD will be affected. My first sentence very clearly states that his PD will not be affected. The disruptions I mentioned were with respect to his current petition.
Read carefully before jumping into conclusions.
Krish,
I did not mention that the PD will be affected. My first sentence very clearly states that his PD will not be affected. The disruptions I mentioned were with respect to his current petition.
Read carefully before jumping into conclusions.
hot Pon And Zi :D
CaliGC
06-15 04:31 PM
see the reply
Any reason why your case was transferred to local office? Our PD is becoming current on July 1st do you recommend me taking an appointment and visiting the local office? please suggest.
Also, please elobrate the interview information you had, and what you carried for the interview.
TIA.
Any reason why your case was transferred to local office? Our PD is becoming current on July 1st do you recommend me taking an appointment and visiting the local office? please suggest.
Also, please elobrate the interview information you had, and what you carried for the interview.
TIA.
more...
house alt”pon and zi Pictures,
Pagal
05-29 01:05 PM
Hello,
Good points, but all are already on IV agenda in one form or another... please visit the IV agenda thread to read what all IV is doing...
Good points, but all are already on IV agenda in one form or another... please visit the IV agenda thread to read what all IV is doing...
tattoo Pon and Zi picture by
san3297
11-10 03:56 PM
This is my first time too coming across such a rfe. I really dont know if this kind of rfe was issued before.I called USCIS but as always they are saying send all the docs mentioned in rfe. My attorney is saying we will send them originals and transcripts. Dont know exaclty if they are doing an educational evaluation.Would like to see any attorneys suggestion on how to deal with this.
more...
pictures Posted in Fan Art, Pon and Zi
waitin_toolong
07-27 10:07 AM
it is ok for the derivative applicant to not be working, but if the primary who os geeting the GC on the basis of employment does need to be employed at the time of approval.
1-2 months off will not matter. If the I-485 stays pending for too long they can raise RFE for current employer letters and other specifics, you will need to have a job lined up at that time.
1-2 months off will not matter. If the I-485 stays pending for too long they can raise RFE for current employer letters and other specifics, you will need to have a job lined up at that time.
dresses Azuzephre#39;s Pon and Zi
LondonTown
03-08 03:32 PM
Thanks Drak. My attorney states otherwise though. He states that I-485 will be denied only after the ultimate denial of the I-140, which he says might take even about a year, and that in the mean time, I-485 will be valid and that she can continue to work on EAD.
P E R P L E X E D !!
I took advise of two lawyers (one is very famous) and both told that if I40 is denied/appealed - do not use EAD and file another PERM immediately, which I did.
P E R P L E X E D !!
I took advise of two lawyers (one is very famous) and both told that if I40 is denied/appealed - do not use EAD and file another PERM immediately, which I did.
more...
makeup Azuzephre#39;s Pon amp; Zi Emo
gc_kaavaali
05-21 01:48 PM
hi,
Just want to find out the process to apply for interim EAD...I applied for EAD renewal on 8th of may and my EAD expires August 16th...i doubt i get my EAD before my current expires...i just want to find out whether i can apply for interim EAD or ??? if yes, what are the current procedures? I e-filed my EAD application and sent all documents to TSC...please help gurus.
Just want to find out the process to apply for interim EAD...I applied for EAD renewal on 8th of may and my EAD expires August 16th...i doubt i get my EAD before my current expires...i just want to find out whether i can apply for interim EAD or ??? if yes, what are the current procedures? I e-filed my EAD application and sent all documents to TSC...please help gurus.
girlfriend Pon amp; zi: kiss, love, pon,
kisana
04-11 07:55 AM
I have couple of questions
1. There is question "Have you ever applied for Online Authorization form USCIS". My answer to that is yes. But in the "Date of application" what should I write. It should be the date on which EAD was issues from EAD card, or date which apparead in receipt notice.
2. Also there is question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
1. There is question "Have you ever applied for Online Authorization form USCIS". My answer to that is yes. But in the "Date of application" what should I write. It should be the date on which EAD was issues from EAD card, or date which apparead in receipt notice.
2. Also there is question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
hairstyles Nubbly Pon And Zi 1 Picture
June05
08-06 11:33 AM
Congratulations!
Quick question: Do you know what your online receive date was before the application got approved? This is the date the USCIS website states that they received your application on. Thx
Quick question: Do you know what your online receive date was before the application got approved? This is the date the USCIS website states that they received your application on. Thx
shahuja
02-06 09:28 AM
i just called DOS. He asked for my visa type and passport number. He said "your visa has been issued in Jan. Call the New Delhi consulate and they should let you know if it would come through mail or do you need to go pick it up"
what happens next ?? how long after this stage it takes to get the visa ?? are there any other checks that could be going on ?? ONCE DOS approves are there any other agencies like FBI, KCC doing some other approvals as well ?? if you know what happens next let me know..waiting for posts..
so now i know I am not stuck due to PIMS and DOS cleared and approved my visa in Jan..what else then ??
what happens next ?? how long after this stage it takes to get the visa ?? are there any other checks that could be going on ?? ONCE DOS approves are there any other agencies like FBI, KCC doing some other approvals as well ?? if you know what happens next let me know..waiting for posts..
so now i know I am not stuck due to PIMS and DOS cleared and approved my visa in Jan..what else then ??
onemorecame
11-27 02:37 PM
It doesn't work anymore
No comments:
Post a Comment