Jubba
01-23 11:25 AM
Knowledge:
PHP
SQL
XML
with Flash Intergration
No sample work to be seen because I only work on backend scripting. You'll have to take my word for it.
You pay for what you get.
Cheers,
Jubba :cowboy:
PHP
SQL
XML
with Flash Intergration
No sample work to be seen because I only work on backend scripting. You'll have to take my word for it.
You pay for what you get.
Cheers,
Jubba :cowboy:
wallpaper Homemade Birthday Cards For
Jubba
03-10 11:42 PM
lol thanks for the good words ;)
alien02k
07-10 08:01 PM
First of all I am filing by postal mail USPS(not e-filing)
1)is it necessary to include I-765 receipt notice(EAD) with my AP application.. But I have only my last years one which will expire in a few months.
2) for AP renewal is it necessary to include marriage certificate for spouse
3) When filing by postal mail, and also considering i applied my I-485/I-140 before july 30/2007, old fee schedule... do i need to pay biometric fee for my renewal
4) I am in Texas and for mailing EAD and AP - can I send them together for me and my spouse. I see different PO Boxes for EAD and AP addresses for the Mesquite, TX address
IN I-765, is it enough only to specify the previous EAD information regarding the office filed and receipt date...or do i have to include my OPT EAD as well as my previous EAD filed last year.
Thank you
1)is it necessary to include I-765 receipt notice(EAD) with my AP application.. But I have only my last years one which will expire in a few months.
2) for AP renewal is it necessary to include marriage certificate for spouse
3) When filing by postal mail, and also considering i applied my I-485/I-140 before july 30/2007, old fee schedule... do i need to pay biometric fee for my renewal
4) I am in Texas and for mailing EAD and AP - can I send them together for me and my spouse. I see different PO Boxes for EAD and AP addresses for the Mesquite, TX address
IN I-765, is it enough only to specify the previous EAD information regarding the office filed and receipt date...or do i have to include my OPT EAD as well as my previous EAD filed last year.
Thank you
2011 Handmade Birthday Card
fedupofgc
02-24 11:09 AM
Guys,
I feel that I am in serious trouble.
I am an employee of a company which was recently raided by uscis. My 6th h1 expires April 2009 and we applied for 7th year h1 extension based on
the approved labor (labor filed in March 2008).
I am not sure at this stage, that my h1 will get approved since the company is under the scanner.(I checked the LCA and It shows the work location where I am working and not from IOWA which is good)
So..what are my options now
1) Can any other employer file for extension based on this company's approved labor?.
2) If I join the other company, what documents do I need to show to USCIS that the labor is approved from my old company(the company under scanner)?
Please let me know..what you guys think...Any help will be greatly appreciated
I feel that I am in serious trouble.
I am an employee of a company which was recently raided by uscis. My 6th h1 expires April 2009 and we applied for 7th year h1 extension based on
the approved labor (labor filed in March 2008).
I am not sure at this stage, that my h1 will get approved since the company is under the scanner.(I checked the LCA and It shows the work location where I am working and not from IOWA which is good)
So..what are my options now
1) Can any other employer file for extension based on this company's approved labor?.
2) If I join the other company, what documents do I need to show to USCIS that the labor is approved from my old company(the company under scanner)?
Please let me know..what you guys think...Any help will be greatly appreciated
more...
jrad
07-23 08:48 PM
Can we apply for I - 485 without having the I -140 receipt notice.What is the work around so that I dont miss the Aug 17,2007 date for filing I -485.Are there any chances that my I - 45 will be rejected, or will I ge an RFE.
My I - 140 was applied during the 2nd week of July, 2007.
thanks
My I - 140 was applied during the 2nd week of July, 2007.
thanks
vivache
09-28 12:51 AM
Need to fill the I-134 for my mother in law and father in law
Does one form suffice .. or do I need to fill two forms?
thanks
Does one form suffice .. or do I need to fill two forms?
thanks
more...
frostrated
06-02 01:22 PM
Hi,
In case dependent is in India and priority date is current. Will this impact on getting EAD for dependent and primary applicant.
Thanks,
yes. you cannot file AoS while out of country. you can file for yourself, but will have to file for the dependent/s when they return.
In case dependent is in India and priority date is current. Will this impact on getting EAD for dependent and primary applicant.
Thanks,
yes. you cannot file AoS while out of country. you can file for yourself, but will have to file for the dependent/s when they return.
2010 They are beautifully handmade
paskal
07-19 08:12 PM
anyone ca make a mistake man!
more...
jsb
09-21 11:43 AM
i got ead(secondary person) yestesday.and also i applied H1 B which got approved 1 week back and i want to take SSN. so my question is with
what(H1B or EAD) i should apply for SSN). Do i need to apply SSN with EAD or H1 B? which one will be better ? please let me know.
You can use either. SS office needs anything to prove that you are authorized to work in the US, which needs a SS
what(H1B or EAD) i should apply for SSN). Do i need to apply SSN with EAD or H1 B? which one will be better ? please let me know.
You can use either. SS office needs anything to prove that you are authorized to work in the US, which needs a SS
hair Birthday Handmade Card by
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
more...
aps
09-09 12:13 PM
any body? any answers please?
hot Birthday cards are typically
bkarnik
08-02 08:43 PM
Please see attached link from Murthy website. http://www.murthy.com/news/n_daylet.html
This is posted for information only. Any members affected by backlogs and haven't received their 45-day letters please contact your attorneys.
This is posted for information only. Any members affected by backlogs and haven't received their 45-day letters please contact your attorneys.
more...
house Handmade greeting cards are
Blog Feeds
01-12 07:40 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Okay, so Lou Dobbs appears on Bill O'Reilly's show last night. And Dobbs appears the more rational one. It is amazing what a desire to get into politics will do to one's "uncompromising" standards. Watch it here:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5822981281410072246?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/lou-dobbs-and-bill-orielly-surreality.html)
Okay, so Lou Dobbs appears on Bill O'Reilly's show last night. And Dobbs appears the more rational one. It is amazing what a desire to get into politics will do to one's "uncompromising" standards. Watch it here:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-5822981281410072246?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/lou-dobbs-and-bill-orielly-surreality.html)
tattoo Simple happy irthday card
aj130346
01-06 11:02 PM
Bottomline - if you are considering converting your LC case from TR to RIR, then your employer must send an email to DOL by Jan 20th and complete recrutiment process by April 1 ( or else case will be closed without recourse to appeal).
for details
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/backlog_faqs_12-22-06.pdf
for details
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/backlog_faqs_12-22-06.pdf
more...
pictures Making Birthday Cards 15
godbless
03-17 12:14 PM
Yes it is pretty much recognised for h1b purpose or for any other purpose whatsoever. I got my first h1b approval on the basis of my MBA from IGNOU.
dresses handmade birthday cards for
sachuin23
11-18 06:06 PM
Hi,
I recently upgraded by I-140 to Premium processing. Soon after the filing of I-907, my status on USCIS status website changed from initial review to Acceptance. The message displayed is that my case has been rejected because of incorrect filing fees. I contacted my lawyer and he is confident that my upgrade was filed properly. He also told me that he has been observing same issue for several clients ,where USCIS website is displaying incorrect message. I am not sure what should be my next step. Is it something I should be worried about?
Is there some one with similar experience ?
I recently upgraded by I-140 to Premium processing. Soon after the filing of I-907, my status on USCIS status website changed from initial review to Acceptance. The message displayed is that my case has been rejected because of incorrect filing fees. I contacted my lawyer and he is confident that my upgrade was filed properly. He also told me that he has been observing same issue for several clients ,where USCIS website is displaying incorrect message. I am not sure what should be my next step. Is it something I should be worried about?
Is there some one with similar experience ?
more...
makeup 2010 Homemade Birthday Cards
hopefulgc
07-18 12:55 PM
What is the point of publishing dates for people to see if they have no relevance?
If they are just for CIS employees to see... why publish them publicly and confuse the deuce out of the entire immigrant community?
If they are "a statement of goals", why aren't these goals being adhered to?
Why set and publish goals that are are not followed?
If they are just for CIS employees to see... why publish them publicly and confuse the deuce out of the entire immigrant community?
If they are "a statement of goals", why aren't these goals being adhered to?
Why set and publish goals that are are not followed?
girlfriend girlfriend Homemade Christmas Cards Homemade Birthday Cards For Kids To Make
HelloWorld2007
10-19 10:28 AM
anyone??
hairstyles kids card
theMan
01-31 08:44 AM
Do you have a work permit to enter Canada. A Business visa is not good enough?
Re entry to US every week is going to get increasingly trickier.
I am inclined to let this pass.This is just my opinion. Get professional advice and keep this forum updated with your decision.
Re entry to US every week is going to get increasingly trickier.
I am inclined to let this pass.This is just my opinion. Get professional advice and keep this forum updated with your decision.
srikondoji
09-08 10:12 AM
All along we have worked with MA chapter and now we are making all out efforts and starting a new group for NH members.
Please join this group as soon as you can
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NH_Immigration_Voice/
Best regards
sri
Please join this group as soon as you can
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NH_Immigration_Voice/
Best regards
sri
test005
05-12 11:43 PM
Please suggest.
No comments:
Post a Comment