Blog Feeds
09-09 07:30 PM
This is a major setback for the antis and for Kris Kobach, the architect of these laws who has assured city councils that these laws are designed to withstand legal challenges. From the ACLU: This is a major setback for the antis. From the ACLU: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today issued a sweeping decision striking down as unconstitutional the city of Hazleton's law that would punish landlords and employers who are accused of renting to or hiring anyone the city classifies as an "illegal alien." The case, Lozano v. Hazleton, has been closely watched across...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/appeals-court-strikes-down-hazleton-pa-law.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/appeals-court-strikes-down-hazleton-pa-law.html)
wallpaper Responds To 2011 BET Award
lelica32
09-09 05:46 PM
from Oh Law:
Full House Judiciary Committee Mark-Up of EB Visa Recapture Bill and Nursing Relief Bill on 09/10/2008 10:15 a.m.
By the direction of the Chairmain, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to debate and act on the following immigration bills:
H.R. 5882 Visa Recapture Bill (Zoe)
H.R. 5924 Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Bill (Wexler)
Video Wabcast
http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/real-live/judiciary/17223/56_judiciary-coj_2141_070212.smi
Full House Judiciary Committee Mark-Up of EB Visa Recapture Bill and Nursing Relief Bill on 09/10/2008 10:15 a.m.
By the direction of the Chairmain, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to debate and act on the following immigration bills:
H.R. 5882 Visa Recapture Bill (Zoe)
H.R. 5924 Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Bill (Wexler)
Video Wabcast
http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/real-live/judiciary/17223/56_judiciary-coj_2141_070212.smi
ShrutiJadhav
04-07 12:07 PM
Hello All,
The officer at the SSN issuing center told me since my passport and the stamped I-94 have my maiden I will get an SSN also in the maiden name and not my married name.
However I had already filed for my EAD (form I-765) before getting this information with my married name which I need to change to the maiden name. I have received an appointment letter for biometrics/finger printing (FP) . What should be done now? Should I wait and tell the officer during the FP about this name change that I need or how should I go about it?
Thanking you in anticipation.
Regards,
Shruti
The officer at the SSN issuing center told me since my passport and the stamped I-94 have my maiden I will get an SSN also in the maiden name and not my married name.
However I had already filed for my EAD (form I-765) before getting this information with my married name which I need to change to the maiden name. I have received an appointment letter for biometrics/finger printing (FP) . What should be done now? Should I wait and tell the officer during the FP about this name change that I need or how should I go about it?
Thanking you in anticipation.
Regards,
Shruti
2011 Chris Brown Leads 2011 BET
Shams
10-10 06:47 PM
Yes, I have received receipts for 485, EAD and AP for me and my family on 10/3.My case was filed on Aug 14th, received by NSC on aug 15th, Receipt Notice Sept 26th.
more...
harsh
12-28 01:08 PM
This is good useful information. Thank you for sharing it with us.
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...
WaitingForMyGC
01-29 11:14 AM
Its a mundane process. Do not worry or get over excited about it. Your application is just getting a free ride from Texas to Nebraska. Just wish it a safe journey:-)
2010 Nicki Minaj tweeted the
Blog Feeds
08-11 10:10 AM
USCIS continues to streamline its processing of applications and petitions with the recent change in filing locations for several forms. The following forms should be mailed to USCIS lockbox facilities rather than directly to USCIS Service Centers:
* I-129F
* I-130
* I-140
* I-526
* I-539
* I-817
The updated filing instructions can be found on the latest versions of each form, which are available for free from USCIS.
This change became effective August 3, 2010.If you recently mailed an application. Applications already en route to the Service Centers will be automatically forwarded to the appropriate lockbox for a period of 45 days. After September 17th, packages (including fees) will be returned to the applicant along with a note explaining the new filing instructions.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/08/uscis_updates_filing_instructi.html)
* I-129F
* I-130
* I-140
* I-526
* I-539
* I-817
The updated filing instructions can be found on the latest versions of each form, which are available for free from USCIS.
This change became effective August 3, 2010.If you recently mailed an application. Applications already en route to the Service Centers will be automatically forwarded to the appropriate lockbox for a period of 45 days. After September 17th, packages (including fees) will be returned to the applicant along with a note explaining the new filing instructions.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/08/uscis_updates_filing_instructi.html)
more...
ups
06-15 01:27 PM
I find the posts where people get layoff after 6 months and use AC21
hair The nominees for the 2011 BET
Blog Feeds
08-07 09:40 AM
Those of you who have been reading this blog awhile will recall the many posts I've written regarding major problems in the system of detention for immigrants facing potential deportation. Nina Bernstein of the New York Times reports this morning that the White House will enact a series of reforms designed to curb abuses. Some of the promised changes are vague, but an immediate step will be an end to sending families to the Hutto detention facility in Texas, a location that has been the source of many complaints.The Administration is apparently looking at more alternatives to detention for non-violent...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/obama-administration-announces-plans-to-reform-ice-detention-system.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/obama-administration-announces-plans-to-reform-ice-detention-system.html)
more...
sanam9696
06-13 09:42 PM
Anyone has any idea?
I have approved I140 (EB3, PD:Nov'04) from previous employer; after getting my MBA (Jun'06), I have changed the job and my job description has also changed. New employer will file the labor after 3 months (HR Policy)..I have good relations with previous employer, they are ready to file I485. Is it possible to file I485(previous employer), while I am working with new employer?
I am not sure but I came to know (not reliable source), that it is possible to file I485(previous employer) and during the interview, I can submit a support letter from the new employer. is this correct?
Requesting your help..so near...but so far!!!!!
I have approved I140 (EB3, PD:Nov'04) from previous employer; after getting my MBA (Jun'06), I have changed the job and my job description has also changed. New employer will file the labor after 3 months (HR Policy)..I have good relations with previous employer, they are ready to file I485. Is it possible to file I485(previous employer), while I am working with new employer?
I am not sure but I came to know (not reliable source), that it is possible to file I485(previous employer) and during the interview, I can submit a support letter from the new employer. is this correct?
Requesting your help..so near...but so far!!!!!
hot when the 2011 BET Awards
aj1234567
02-18 02:18 PM
Hi All,
Can anybody please let me know how to post new thread in is forum.
Thanks
Aj
Can anybody please let me know how to post new thread in is forum.
Thanks
Aj
more...
house BET Awards 2011 Nominations
sb0k
10-12 07:42 AM
hi everyone..this is my first time in this forum and please allow me to introduce myself..i'm domenico and i come from italy..in this forum i found a lot of interesting things like this contest and i want try to enter in this competition..
this is my first button! :proud:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/7990/splasho.png
greetz!
this is my first button! :proud:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/7990/splasho.png
greetz!
tattoo Nicki Minaj, born Onika Maraj
Blog Feeds
11-11 03:50 AM
Marco Rubio has a challenge. He needs to appeal to conservatives in order to drum up enough votes to defeat popular Governor Charlie Crist in next year's Florida GOP primary. Then he has to run back to the middle to appeal to an increasingly liberal Florida general electorate. When it comes to immigration, he needs to come off as tough on illegally present workers. And then he somehow has to seem reasonable on the issue by the time he gets to the November election. The Miami Herald reports on how this is going to be a tough task.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/florida-senate-candidate-tries-to-straddle-immigration-issue.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/florida-senate-candidate-tries-to-straddle-immigration-issue.html)
more...
pictures 2011 BET Awards in Los Angeles
skdskd
08-30 06:37 PM
bump
dresses Beyonce+et+awards+2011+
sudhakar09
03-04 04:49 PM
I am currently on H1B through company A previously I was working for Company B before that was working for Company C.
I transferred my H1B from C->B->A, Because of current Economy now my employer(Company C) is saying that if I lose my current project at client location he is going to cancel my H1.
If that happens can I go back to B Or C company, as My previous companies never cancelled my H1.
Appreciate any help here.
Thanks.
I transferred my H1B from C->B->A, Because of current Economy now my employer(Company C) is saying that if I lose my current project at client location he is going to cancel my H1.
If that happens can I go back to B Or C company, as My previous companies never cancelled my H1.
Appreciate any help here.
Thanks.
more...
makeup the 2011 BET Awards show.
Blog Feeds
12-28 04:50 AM
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates an inclusive mathematical formula for apportioning "Representatives . . . among the Several states". It requires a decennial census count of "the whole number of persons in each State" excluding untaxed Native Americans. As the New York Times reports, a push is on, using Christmas-themed posters in Spanish, to urge Hispanics (citizens, legal residents and the undocumented, especially Evangelical Christians) to cooperate with census-takers and be counted when the tally begins in March, 2010. The effort is targeted beyond the Hispanic community, with posters offered in English ("This is How Jesus Was...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/an-immigration-christmas-story-extended-through-march-2010.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/an-immigration-christmas-story-extended-through-march-2010.html)
girlfriend Nicki Minaj
manusingh
09-25 11:13 AM
I used Ap in 2007 and than I filed H-1B extension 6 month prior to my H-1B expiring in sept 2008. which was approved with the sameI-94 as on parolee status.
I want to use AP again, is there any problem.
Has anybody done that.
appreciate your help in advance.
pl. need your advice
I want to use AP again, is there any problem.
Has anybody done that.
appreciate your help in advance.
pl. need your advice
hairstyles Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne and
Rajn19
06-04 07:55 PM
Guru's please help....
My attorney sent in EAD renewal applications for me and my spouse. We got a receipt from USCIS yesterday with a MSC receipt number with some information on scheduling biometrics. I called my attorney and asked him about the same. He said that this is normal as he did the right thing by sending our application to a lock box address in Chicago. We are wisconsin residents. Please advise if this is fine to get a recipet notice from the Missouri service center address.
My attorney sent in EAD renewal applications for me and my spouse. We got a receipt from USCIS yesterday with a MSC receipt number with some information on scheduling biometrics. I called my attorney and asked him about the same. He said that this is normal as he did the right thing by sending our application to a lock box address in Chicago. We are wisconsin residents. Please advise if this is fine to get a recipet notice from the Missouri service center address.
STAmisha
08-29 12:26 PM
My spouse is on H4 currently. Have applied for H1 in April 2007 and got the H1 aproved. So the new H1 starts on Oct 2007. However, we applied for 485 and got our EAD's (No recept number, No finger printing etc).
Can my spouse use EAD to start job? we dont want use that new H1 currently. What are the implications if we use EAD? Will the H1 (and my H1) be effected?
Can my spouse use EAD to start job? we dont want use that new H1 currently. What are the implications if we use EAD? Will the H1 (and my H1) be effected?
iol_joh
06-13 10:44 PM
Since the priority dates advanced during the month of June, has anyone received approvals on their 485.
PD: Sep 2001.
485 filed: Feb 2004.
Category: EB3
I could not find any discussion related to this issue and hence started this thread. I apologize if I have started a duplicate thread.
PD: Sep 2001.
485 filed: Feb 2004.
Category: EB3
I could not find any discussion related to this issue and hence started this thread. I apologize if I have started a duplicate thread.
No comments:
Post a Comment