whattodo21
09-07 02:20 PM
Seven Myths That Cloud Immigration Debate - Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0901_immigration_west.aspx)
wallpaper Long Hairstyles - Japanese Wow
supers789
06-22 06:14 PM
If PD is current when USCIS starts processing the applications, PD's doesn't matter. But if PDs retrogate (which will be the case most likely), then USCIS only going to process the applications which has PD current that time. I hope it makes sense.
gcseeker2002
04-15 02:15 AM
My friends wife applied for h1b and left for India on march 30th, while on H4, they got their h4 stamped april 5th, and still dont know about status of h1b application. The i94 number mentioned in the I129 is the old I94 which was surrendered at port of exit. When they reenter sometime in may, she will get new I94 , which will of course, be valid exactly as the I94 mentioned on I129.
1. Will there be any other problem in port of entry , as she will be entering on H4 stamping.
2. Will the h1b application get rejected or queried.
please answer these two questions.
1. Will there be any other problem in port of entry , as she will be entering on H4 stamping.
2. Will the h1b application get rejected or queried.
please answer these two questions.
2011 Wow Hairstyles - Daily Ladies
canant
01-14 09:44 PM
Hi,
I want to ask whether this new Memo for validity of employer-employee relationship is being questioned in case of Port of Entry for existing Stamped H1b holders who are planning their short visit to go and come back in US.
Thank you in advance
I want to ask whether this new Memo for validity of employer-employee relationship is being questioned in case of Port of Entry for existing Stamped H1b holders who are planning their short visit to go and come back in US.
Thank you in advance
more...
kirupa
05-06 06:16 PM
I'm not a big fan of the text either :(
saddaypally
04-15 07:34 AM
Folks, I'm in the current sitation. In 6th year of H1B, aplied for PERM labor pending with ATL processing center for >15 mtonhs. Attorneys are filing for 7th year extension. I need to traval in the next 2 weeks but not confident enough to get everything right, I need my visa stamped aswell, which with the current H1B validity, would be onlyuntil 22nd Oct 2009. I did try to convince my Managers that they file the extension under premium processing and I could get extended visa until Oct 2010, but Attorney advised that it is not necessary and I should be fine to go, get my visa stamped and come back.
2 points I'm concerned about are,
1. Since I have < 6 months validty on current H1B is it safe to travel and I would hopefully have my extsntion reciept number when I go for stamping.
2. Heard lot about denial of entry at POE, I'm trying to avoid certain airports that I has problems (JFK, EWR etc). Not sure I'm doing enough to be safe.
Any advise is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Shrvan
2 points I'm concerned about are,
1. Since I have < 6 months validty on current H1B is it safe to travel and I would hopefully have my extsntion reciept number when I go for stamping.
2. Heard lot about denial of entry at POE, I'm trying to avoid certain airports that I has problems (JFK, EWR etc). Not sure I'm doing enough to be safe.
Any advise is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Shrvan
more...
Blog Feeds
12-15 11:40 AM
I've been blogging about this for years, but the GOP still can't see that its tilt to being the anti-immigrant party is incredibly dangerous for its long-term prospects. The LA Times reports on this today. Some in the party suffer from the delusion that Latino voters don't care about immigration or, incredibly, actually agree with their positions. Polls show they overwhelmingly are concerned about the subject and they have been moving to the Democratic Party in droves over the last five years. When the recession is over (and its looking like 2011 will be a much improved year for the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/dream-act-could-come-back-to-haunt-gop.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/dream-act-could-come-back-to-haunt-gop.html)
2010 for searchquot;wow hairstyles
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
more...
KapHn8d
December 12th, 2003, 08:10 PM
Thanks!
-Clayton
ps. True coffee lovers always get the name right away. We can spot the wannabe's that way... ;)
-Clayton
ps. True coffee lovers always get the name right away. We can spot the wannabe's that way... ;)