skd
08-15 01:20 PM
Probably because Lot of people in IV are hurting because of people who jumped the line by using somebody else�s LC and people are getting ahead of some one who are there in line for 6-8 years.\
I am NOT the one who gave you red. I never give anyone red even if i don't like the post..
I will just give you my "green"
I am NOT the one who gave you red. I never give anyone red even if i don't like the post..
I will just give you my "green"
wallpaper tribal upper back tattoo
copsmart
06-15 02:52 PM
Given below are my case details.
Paper Based – Sent to Phoenix Lockbox, rerouted to CSC
Mailed Date : May 18th
Delivered Date : May 19th
Received Date : May 20th
Notice Date : June 1st
1st SLUD : June 2nd
2nd SLUD : June 9th
3rd SLUD : June 10th
4th SLUD : June 11th
No activity since last SLUD… My EAD expires in August. Has anyone noticed similar SLUD pattern on their case lately?
I would really appreciate if CSC/WAC applicants post their case status updates.
Thanks!!!
Paper Based – Sent to Phoenix Lockbox, rerouted to CSC
Mailed Date : May 18th
Delivered Date : May 19th
Received Date : May 20th
Notice Date : June 1st
1st SLUD : June 2nd
2nd SLUD : June 9th
3rd SLUD : June 10th
4th SLUD : June 11th
No activity since last SLUD… My EAD expires in August. Has anyone noticed similar SLUD pattern on their case lately?
I would really appreciate if CSC/WAC applicants post their case status updates.
Thanks!!!
Gravitation
06-22 10:01 AM
There are not enough numbers in the house to pass CIR. It may be pushed in Senate for political reasons and may pass easily, but there's no such hope -whatsoever- in the House.
If CIR is to ever pass, 2009 is the best year.
So, there's no hope of passing in what could the best possible year for CIR! Am I the only one to whom it all sounds very ominous?
If CIR is to ever pass, 2009 is the best year.
So, there's no hope of passing in what could the best possible year for CIR! Am I the only one to whom it all sounds very ominous?
2011 Beginner#39;s Guide To Tattoos
greenguru
03-31 03:26 PM
Yes. I applied for EB2 again in Jan 2009 and ported from EB3 to EB2.
So that is why it took me so long
So that is why it took me so long
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
indio0617
04-06 11:03 AM
Wonderful Summary !
Thanks...
Thanks...
more...
permgc
12-06 10:20 AM
Guys, I filed my I-131 online and I got receipt number LINxxx for Nebraska service center even though I reside and work in NorthEast region for which service center is Texas. My 485 application is pending at Nebraska center, so that might be the reason I got a receipt number for Nebraska center. On the confirmation reciept Nebraska center's address is listed for sending required documents.
I am not sure if I need to send the documents to Nebraska or Texas (as my residence falls under this center).
Could some knowledgable member throw some light on this?
Also, address is P.O.Box address, so can I use FedEx to send my documents or do I need to use USPS.
Reply would be greatly appreciated.
I am not sure if I need to send the documents to Nebraska or Texas (as my residence falls under this center).
Could some knowledgable member throw some light on this?
Also, address is P.O.Box address, so can I use FedEx to send my documents or do I need to use USPS.
Reply would be greatly appreciated.
2010 Upper Arm Tattoo Designs
kisana
04-11 07:55 AM
I have couple of questions
1. There is question "Have you ever applied for Online Authorization form USCIS". My answer to that is yes. But in the "Date of application" what should I write. It should be the date on which EAD was issues from EAD card, or date which apparead in receipt notice.
2. Also there is question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
1. There is question "Have you ever applied for Online Authorization form USCIS". My answer to that is yes. But in the "Date of application" what should I write. It should be the date on which EAD was issues from EAD card, or date which apparead in receipt notice.
2. Also there is question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
more...
pressman
January 5th, 2005, 04:55 AM
Rob - this is superb street journalism - the selective colouring adds to the impact. Nice job.
Pete
Pete
hair tattoo designs for girls upper back. tattoo designs for girls,
nemu777
09-17 03:38 PM
Hi Vani,
I applied for H1B through a NJ based consultancy company for year 2010. I haven't got any receipt number though my employer claims to have fedexed my application on April 6th. Have u been able to get in touch with USCIS regarding your application. Pls update.
I applied for H1B through a NJ based consultancy company for year 2010. I haven't got any receipt number though my employer claims to have fedexed my application on April 6th. Have u been able to get in touch with USCIS regarding your application. Pls update.
more...
franklin
07-17 05:43 PM
Thanks To You All It Would Not Have Been Possible Without Your Support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, it wouldn't have been possible without donations from members on the board as well.
There is MUCH more to do and fight for.
Please donate!
Actually, it wouldn't have been possible without donations from members on the board as well.
There is MUCH more to do and fight for.
Please donate!
hot tattoo designs for girls upper
reddy77
04-12 04:21 PM
Thanks, Even I am thinking the same but just worried, would I also get the copy of RFE??
Don't worry much its more than like going to be a medical RFE.
I had an RFE recently with similar status. See thread....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24601
Don't worry much its more than like going to be a medical RFE.
I had an RFE recently with similar status. See thread....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24601
more...
house upper back tattoo gallery.
calgirl
08-20 03:52 PM
When was this initiated and when was it cleared?
I got name check information atlast today. Its cleared
Still waiting for GC Approval. God knows when it will get approved.
Labor Priority Date: May 24, 2006
I -140 Approved: Oct 2006
I-485 RD July 2, 2007
I-485 ND Aug 27, 2007 with SRCXXXXXXX
I got name check information atlast today. Its cleared
Still waiting for GC Approval. God knows when it will get approved.
Labor Priority Date: May 24, 2006
I -140 Approved: Oct 2006
I-485 RD July 2, 2007
I-485 ND Aug 27, 2007 with SRCXXXXXXX
tattoo A tribal tattoo at man#39;s upper
rameshvaid
05-27 10:46 AM
Talk to your Local "state" Congressman(woman)/Senator.
I will certainly do that..
RV..
I will certainly do that..
RV..
more...
pictures upper back tattoo gallery.
mrdelhiite
01-10 01:47 PM
She can continue to work with the same employer on H1 without any issue. I did traveled back thrice using AP and renewed by H1 with the same employer twice without any issues. Though I have my H1 valid till 2010, it is invalid after my GC approval :(.
Thanks
Can you explain ur case in detail. the part "I did traveled back thrice using AP and renewed by H1 with the same employer twice without any issues." is interesting ... did u renew H1 by getting another stamp ... did u change companies on H1 after the AP travel ?
-M
Thanks
Can you explain ur case in detail. the part "I did traveled back thrice using AP and renewed by H1 with the same employer twice without any issues." is interesting ... did u renew H1 by getting another stamp ... did u change companies on H1 after the AP travel ?
-M
dresses Upper Back Tattoo Designs For
spicy_guy
09-08 10:55 AM
Good atleast we can have jobs, fr..ing last couple of years tired of loosing jobs because of Outsourcing companies. Waiting for GC from 9 years and now struggling to keep the job because of Outsourcing. Big F for OS
If you were in India, you would have asked for more OS. huh?
If you were in India, you would have asked for more OS. huh?
more...
makeup Special Star Tattoo Upper Back
flresident
04-08 01:55 PM
Question regarding Current Immigration Status field on EAD renewal form:
I am applying for EAD renewal for my spouse. Currently she is on H-4 but I am soon planning to use EAD to start another job. I guess my spouse's status will also change from H-4 to AOS (I guess) at the same time. What should be current immigration status for my spouse when I have already started working on another job using EAD.
BTW, I used paper filing for both of us.
Thanks for your input.
I am applying for EAD renewal for my spouse. Currently she is on H-4 but I am soon planning to use EAD to start another job. I guess my spouse's status will also change from H-4 to AOS (I guess) at the same time. What should be current immigration status for my spouse when I have already started working on another job using EAD.
BTW, I used paper filing for both of us.
Thanks for your input.
girlfriend Upper Back Tattoo Designs For
mrsr
02-20 11:13 AM
InterFiling Help please gurus...
hairstyles hairstyles gallery of tattoos
acecupid
08-21 05:51 PM
Did you file directly to NSC or TSC?
DAte, time etc.
Thanks in advance!
Applied at NSC and was received on 16th July at 9:30am
DAte, time etc.
Thanks in advance!
Applied at NSC and was received on 16th July at 9:30am
pd052009
04-15 03:58 PM
I am in.
What do I need to do apart from contributions and convincing other friends to vote on the above thread?
After voting on the thread, could you
- Email ivcoordinator@gmail.com with PD, ph#,email & subject "I485 filing impacted�
-- This info will help to organize the next activity.
- Read this link. This has helpful details to reach out the fellow impacted members. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum70-self-filing-documents-forms-directions-mailing/1845295-support-thread-for-i485-filing-w-o-curr-pd-initiative.html#post2243885
Happy to know that your friends are joining to get our relief.
What do I need to do apart from contributions and convincing other friends to vote on the above thread?
After voting on the thread, could you
- Email ivcoordinator@gmail.com with PD, ph#,email & subject "I485 filing impacted�
-- This info will help to organize the next activity.
- Read this link. This has helpful details to reach out the fellow impacted members. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum70-self-filing-documents-forms-directions-mailing/1845295-support-thread-for-i485-filing-w-o-curr-pd-initiative.html#post2243885
Happy to know that your friends are joining to get our relief.
reddymjm
05-16 02:53 PM
Sent an email to 20 of my friends @ work to that and following up with them.
Some of my friends got the response saying that they are getting lot of calls and your name is added to MI phone list.
Some of my friends got the response saying that they are getting lot of calls and your name is added to MI phone list.
