sdeshpan
04-23 01:49 PM
I believe they promise a 15-day (business days, I assume) turnaround on Premium Proc applications. So it could take anywhere between 1 and 15 days, if not longer in certain cases.
Also, why is going to India dependent on receiving on an approval of I-140??
Also, why is going to India dependent on receiving on an approval of I-140??
wallpaper hairstyle with natural
Pram777
08-27 10:36 AM
My PD is Jun 2008 and my I140 is approved in April 2009 in EB2. My employer and lawyer did not give me any paperwork regarding Labor or I140 so I know details about Ad, Job Title or Description and stuff like that. If I want to transfer my H1 and keep the Priority Date, how can I know these details. Will it be a problem if I dont have these details.
Thank you
Thank you
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 ?
2011 Shoulder length natural hair
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...
desigirl
04-26 01:04 PM
Wonder what these people will say, if the native indians proposed laws that said, anybody who is not Indian (:D) need to leave the country; no Caucasians are welcome in this land!!!!!!!!
IQAndreas
03-10 09:32 PM
I wasn't sure weather to post this one or just hold it back for myself. I might as well...
Well, it's not aesthetically pleasing, but hopefully it's funny or at least a little witty.
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6546/bluescreenofdeathg.png
Well, it's not aesthetically pleasing, but hopefully it's funny or at least a little witty.
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6546/bluescreenofdeathg.png
more...
gc_maine2
07-06 03:48 PM
don't create new threads, check in this thread you might find answers.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4478
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4478
2010 Natural Hairstyles
indyanguy
09-29 05:25 PM
Can someone comment on how the recent trend has been for a PERM application that was applied under EB2 for a Software Developer position?
My employer is planning to apply one for myself and was wondering if it's a good time to do so?
I've heard that DOL is blatantly denying a large % of applications that are in the audit queue. Is this true? :(
Thanks
My employer is planning to apply one for myself and was wondering if it's a good time to do so?
I've heard that DOL is blatantly denying a large % of applications that are in the audit queue. Is this true? :(
Thanks
more...
nixstor
03-11 03:24 PM
I need at least one person from Vermont
hair hairstyle, natural hair
skagitswimmer
July 26th, 2005, 12:00 PM
These are nice photos but I for one would appreciate it if new threads are started for discussions and new photographs are added to your personal galleries and if you like critique requests. That way we can look at your photographs by thumbnail and keep the topics on new threads to ones which are topical.
more...
jchan
06-02 04:33 PM
I am on 7th year of H1B with approved 140. 485 not filed yet.
My company is starting layoff and I am afraid I will be hit. If I switch to H4 after being laid off and found a new employer in future, is that possible to switch back to H1B without having to leave the country for a full year?
My current H1B was a three year extension based on approved 140, but I don't know if I will lose the benefit of AC21 and cannot change back to H1B once I switch to H4 since my 6 years have been used up already.
thanks in advance.
My company is starting layoff and I am afraid I will be hit. If I switch to H4 after being laid off and found a new employer in future, is that possible to switch back to H1B without having to leave the country for a full year?
My current H1B was a three year extension based on approved 140, but I don't know if I will lose the benefit of AC21 and cannot change back to H1B once I switch to H4 since my 6 years have been used up already.
thanks in advance.
hot For Natural Hair
raghu112
07-19 10:32 PM
I am in!
more...
house hairstyles for natural hair black women. natural
ksvreg
04-28 05:24 PM
Thanks
tattoo present natural hair care
shiniboy
07-07 05:14 AM
Thank you, I love your site.
more...
pictures natural hair care products
immig4me
07-26 10:02 AM
Connect the World: Blog Archive - How has immigration affected your life? � - CNN.com Blogs (http://connecttheworld.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/26/does-immigration-help-or-hinder/)
Are you an immigrant? How have you found your transition from one country to another? Do you think the majority of people are welcoming? Do you oppose immigration? Should there be tougher regulations in your country?
Please leave your comments below - we would also love to use your comments on air, so please let us know if you are interested in appearing on CNN's Connect the World. And don't forgot to let us know where you're writing from.
Are you an immigrant? How have you found your transition from one country to another? Do you think the majority of people are welcoming? Do you oppose immigration? Should there be tougher regulations in your country?
Please leave your comments below - we would also love to use your comments on air, so please let us know if you are interested in appearing on CNN's Connect the World. And don't forgot to let us know where you're writing from.
dresses hairstyles Black Natural Hair
Blog Feeds
06-25 05:00 PM
From Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Tribune: Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) is among the small group of members of Congress meeting with President Obama Thursday afternoon to discuss immigration reform. Don't get your hopes up if you are tracking the issue. The meeting is happening, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said Thursday morning at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, because "the votes aren't there." Rahm's management rule: When you have the votes, you don't need a meeting.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/rahm-immigration-reform-still-lacking-needed-votes.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/rahm-immigration-reform-still-lacking-needed-votes.html)
more...
makeup natural afro hair styles
kprgroup
03-11 02:40 PM
My wife (H4) & I (H1-B) have valid I94 and visa stamped in out passport for company A until AUG2010.Last September 2008, I have transferred my H1-B to Company B and it got approved and valid until same AUG 2010.Right now I am working for Company B on H1B
When I moved to company B, My previous employer canceled my I140 that triggered 485 denied (For Both).Worked with a Lawyer and filed MTR and my (I am the primary applicant)MTR got approved back in Nov2008.I am still waiting for my wife MTR update. Online status still shows - Case received and pending. (For MTR)
1) I am thinking of transfer my wife H4 to Company B. Is there any issue you guys (seniors) think of?
2) One more question .We both has EAD valid until 09/2010. Both never used EAD. We got our EAD before our 485 denied. Now since my MTR got approved, the EAD is still valid?
Please let me know. Thanks for everyone help
K
When I moved to company B, My previous employer canceled my I140 that triggered 485 denied (For Both).Worked with a Lawyer and filed MTR and my (I am the primary applicant)MTR got approved back in Nov2008.I am still waiting for my wife MTR update. Online status still shows - Case received and pending. (For MTR)
1) I am thinking of transfer my wife H4 to Company B. Is there any issue you guys (seniors) think of?
2) One more question .We both has EAD valid until 09/2010. Both never used EAD. We got our EAD before our 485 denied. Now since my MTR got approved, the EAD is still valid?
Please let me know. Thanks for everyone help
K
girlfriend 2011 natural twist hairstyles.
dollar500
11-07 08:42 PM
bump
hairstyles black hairstyles long hair.
sunny1000
01-31 12:04 AM
Just asking out of curiosity because when an illegal alien lives and possibly runs from cops from place to place for a period of time then they are qualifed for a green card and eventually citizenship.
Why would they become nice to them after a certain period of time? It is illegal.
because, you are a f*uking troll and you are here illegally.
Why would they become nice to them after a certain period of time? It is illegal.
because, you are a f*uking troll and you are here illegally.
cbpds
07-11 12:39 AM
Its better to carry all docs incl I129
Blog Feeds
01-04 08:10 AM
USCIS has announced that it is working on a rule to create an electronic registration system for H-1B employers subject to the annual cap. Employers would first register an application and be allocated an H-1B cap number and then would file the case. The idea is that employers would need to register to claim an H-1B cap number first and then if they are selected, they then would prepare and file the case. Right now, employers have to go to all the trouble of preparing a case that may be rejected simply because the visa allocation is filled. I think...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário