jonty_11
06-15 02:43 PM
join discussion on already existing thread please
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4998
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4998
wallpaper meaningful then you can toyota logo design. hot toyota logo vector.
ramaonline
02-11 06:15 PM
You may be able to stay without a job as long as the future job offer is still open and the gc sponsoring employer has an intent to hire you after the 485 is approved. Please confirm with your immig attny
ravise
12-09 10:39 AM
my cousin traveled from chennai to nyc via brussels , used AP. No issues.
2011 toyota logo design. 2010 toyota logo design toyota
kirupa
03-24 12:02 AM
Added!
more...
watertown
09-26 11:33 AM
I had my I-485 interview at Boston-CIS in May,2007 and since then they were telling me lots of BS like NC, One security check open, additional review. Finally they sent me a letter telling me I need to attend NSEER interview at ICE office in Boston and I did that this week and the nice ICE officer told me that he was sending my file back to NSC. Last time I saw that thick file was when I was interviewed by IO at Boston-CIS!. Does it mean NSC will approve it now? I'm EB2 ROW and I was never finger printed more than once. So far had 2 EAD/AP and I applied in 2006 August
thesparky007
04-01 12:51 AM
el paso ok!
more...
smarth
09-22 09:57 AM
application sent on 08/09 to Nebraska
2010 Creating Toyota Logo
askreddy
06-25 10:19 PM
Thank You for the info.
more...
pradhyumnakansara
03-31 02:01 PM
Respected Sir
This is to humbly request you to guide me.
I did AMIE in Computer Engg., from India and thereafter I underwent WES evaluation. It clearly stated that its equivalent to US Bachelors. On the same basis, I did my MBA from University of New Haven, CT USA. Now as I wan to file my H1B on the basis of my AMIE qualifiactions, what would be your wise advice?
This is to humbly request you to guide me.
I did AMIE in Computer Engg., from India and thereafter I underwent WES evaluation. It clearly stated that its equivalent to US Bachelors. On the same basis, I did my MBA from University of New Haven, CT USA. Now as I wan to file my H1B on the basis of my AMIE qualifiactions, what would be your wise advice?
hair toyota logo Image
memyselfandus
04-10 11:13 AM
You cannot apply for I-485 unless I-140 is approved as EB1 is purely based on I-140 not labor.
more...
NeelSona
01-14 12:15 PM
Hi,
I am staying in USA and now I will like to apply Canada Work permit VISA, I need following basic information
1. Which site I can apply Canada Work permits VISA and Which VISA type?
2. Do we need any sponsor there in Canada?
Thanks,
-neelsona
I am staying in USA and now I will like to apply Canada Work permit VISA, I need following basic information
1. Which site I can apply Canada Work permits VISA and Which VISA type?
2. Do we need any sponsor there in Canada?
Thanks,
-neelsona
hot toyota logo design. Toyota FS Europe; Toyota FS Europe. spatial
ksribhas
09-17 01:49 PM
Hello,
These are my details :
I-140 -> Jul 07
I -485 -> Aug 07
I -140 Denied in may 08. There was no appeal no MTR
I-485 shows pending
New I 140 was filed in Jun 08, we got receipt information.
On that A# is same as the A# issued for I-485
Questions:
a) Is my I-485 still valid?
b) Is it tied to new I-140 we filed?
c) Can I renew my EAD and AP if I 485 is valid?
d) How to check all the 3 above?
These are my details :
I-140 -> Jul 07
I -485 -> Aug 07
I -140 Denied in may 08. There was no appeal no MTR
I-485 shows pending
New I 140 was filed in Jun 08, we got receipt information.
On that A# is same as the A# issued for I-485
Questions:
a) Is my I-485 still valid?
b) Is it tied to new I-140 we filed?
c) Can I renew my EAD and AP if I 485 is valid?
d) How to check all the 3 above?
more...
house makeup Also the toyota logo coloured toyota logo design.
Bobby Digital
September 24th, 2005, 08:42 PM
Why won't my pictures come up on the critique gallery? I can see them,but when I click on them it just show the name with no pic.
tattoo The attached Toyota logo
Blog Feeds
06-08 02:20 AM
The Department of Labor published a final rule, effective on June 29, 2009, that suspends the H-2A final rule published on December 18, 2009. DOL is republishing and reinstating regulations in place on January 16, 2009, for 9 months, after which the Department will either have engaged in further rulemaking or lift the suspension.
The Department of Labor released FAQs regarding the May 29, 2009, suspension of a December 18, 2009, final rule on H-2As. Read more below
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/06/h2a_visas_dol_publishes_final.html)
The Department of Labor released FAQs regarding the May 29, 2009, suspension of a December 18, 2009, final rule on H-2As. Read more below
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/06/h2a_visas_dol_publishes_final.html)
more...
pictures toyota logo design. design Toyota Lexus Logo.
Zeeman19
August 15th, 2006, 08:10 PM
I'm about to buy a Nikon DSLR and I need lens suggestions (for lenses under $500).
I'm also having a big debate on whether I should buy the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 or if I should buy a Nikon lens.
I'm interested in general purpose zooms only.
I'm also having a big debate on whether I should buy the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 or if I should buy a Nikon lens.
I'm interested in general purpose zooms only.
dresses Vue V6 Toyota symbol on my
moveahead123
10-11 05:33 PM
Call Customer Service. Phone no. is provided on any of your recipt notices. These is an option for typos on the document, when you call them. Tell them and they will open a Service Request, and update your name either when you go for fingerprinting or immedately. Mostly, they will open service request. You should also get an email confirming the Request made by you within few days (When I called for my typo, they said witin 45days, but got the mail within 15 days). Take that email with you if you get it before fingerprinting.
more...
makeup Create the Toyota logo
sabgau
07-12 08:27 AM
I left my Indian consulting company and the employer owes me $14,000 which he is now refusing to pay, he says he will deduct it as a cost of H1 and GC processing fees
When I started working for him he told me that he would take care of all these costs(of course he did not give this in writing) and not at anytime was there a verbal or written agreement that I would have to repay him these costs if I left him.
What recourse do I have now?
When I started working for him he told me that he would take care of all these costs(of course he did not give this in writing) and not at anytime was there a verbal or written agreement that I would have to repay him these costs if I left him.
What recourse do I have now?
girlfriend xbox logo eps. toyota logo
onc
03-29 12:12 PM
Hello Friends,
I have a question regarding waiver on J2 EAD.
My husband is doing residency on J1 since last 9 months. His residency program is of 4years and plans to do 1 yr fellowship later on on J1 so total of 5 yrs
I m now on J2 and have an EAD with me.
My questions are:
1. Do I need to do a waiver job after I complete my residency on EAD before joining any other hospital here in the US? or it just applies to my husband(on J1) to do a waiver.
2. If aftercompleting my residency on EAD, if my husband gets a waiver he will be on H1 and me on H4and if the same year I get H1 fellowship program for 1 yr, can I change my status from J2 EAD to H1 without doing a waiver?
3. How much time it normally takes to renew your EAD?
Thank you.
Regards,
Kindly reply as soon as possible.
I have a question regarding waiver on J2 EAD.
My husband is doing residency on J1 since last 9 months. His residency program is of 4years and plans to do 1 yr fellowship later on on J1 so total of 5 yrs
I m now on J2 and have an EAD with me.
My questions are:
1. Do I need to do a waiver job after I complete my residency on EAD before joining any other hospital here in the US? or it just applies to my husband(on J1) to do a waiver.
2. If aftercompleting my residency on EAD, if my husband gets a waiver he will be on H1 and me on H4and if the same year I get H1 fellowship program for 1 yr, can I change my status from J2 EAD to H1 without doing a waiver?
3. How much time it normally takes to renew your EAD?
Thank you.
Regards,
Kindly reply as soon as possible.
hairstyles Also the toyota logo coloured
Pagal
07-05 03:23 AM
Hello,
Sorry to read about that....
Are you legally in US i.e. can you travel in and out of US?
If not, then this forum may not be of use to you as the forum exlcusively addresses the issues surrounding legal immigration
Are you authorized to work in US i.e. do you have a social security number that is valid for employment
If yes, then you should report the abusing woman to police. If not, then you maybe in viloation of US employment and immigration laws
Sorry to read about that....
Are you legally in US i.e. can you travel in and out of US?
If not, then this forum may not be of use to you as the forum exlcusively addresses the issues surrounding legal immigration
Are you authorized to work in US i.e. do you have a social security number that is valid for employment
If yes, then you should report the abusing woman to police. If not, then you maybe in viloation of US employment and immigration laws
tintya
08-31 04:25 PM
Hello,
Does anyone know if a H1B can be transferred from a University to a company? Has anyone gone through this process?
Does anyone know if a H1B can be transferred from a University to a company? Has anyone gone through this process?
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
No comments:
Post a Comment