gsiskind
09-11 06:43 PM
Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy: DID JOE WILSON MAKE UP STORY ABOUT PRACTICING IMMIGRATION LAW? (http://tinyurl.com/mhfosd)
wallpaper Sea oil paintings
ksvreg
04-18 01:58 PM
I am planning to renew my passport. Current passport is going to expire in October 2008.
Currently my I-485 is pending. If I renew my passport, do I need to update my renewed passport number to USCIS?
Currently my I-485 is pending. If I renew my passport, do I need to update my renewed passport number to USCIS?
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
2011 Oil Painting Painting
mgakhar
02-01 02:06 PM
Hi All,
I applied for my I485 during the July 07 fiasco and also for EAD/AP for me and my wife. I just renewed my H1B for another 3 years and my manager just said that since I have my H1B, I shouldnt renew my EAD/AP when it expires next year since it is quite an expense for the company. My wife is using her EAD for her current job and so that will still be renewed.
Just wanted to find out if there can be any issues if I dont renew just my EAD/AP?
Also after filing for the I485 in July 07, we did our Fingerprinting in Feb 08. We had not received FP notice and had to go through infopass to get FP done. Since then we've not received a renewal for FP again. I believe FP expires in 18 months and we need get it done again. Should I be receiving FP notice for renewal or do I need to go thru infopass again?
Thanks,
MG.
I applied for my I485 during the July 07 fiasco and also for EAD/AP for me and my wife. I just renewed my H1B for another 3 years and my manager just said that since I have my H1B, I shouldnt renew my EAD/AP when it expires next year since it is quite an expense for the company. My wife is using her EAD for her current job and so that will still be renewed.
Just wanted to find out if there can be any issues if I dont renew just my EAD/AP?
Also after filing for the I485 in July 07, we did our Fingerprinting in Feb 08. We had not received FP notice and had to go through infopass to get FP done. Since then we've not received a renewal for FP again. I believe FP expires in 18 months and we need get it done again. Should I be receiving FP notice for renewal or do I need to go thru infopass again?
Thanks,
MG.
more...
Desertfox
03-25 03:40 PM
Sent you a PM with my attorney's info...
Blog Feeds
11-18 03:00 PM
USCIS is reporting that as of November 6th, 54,900 H-1Bs had been issued against the 65,000 annual quota. While this represents a dramatic drop in H-1B applications over previous years. In 2007, nearly 200,000 applications were filed in the first week applications were open and in 2009, the application period is now in its seventh month. Usage seems to be about 1,000 cases a week so we're probably looking at January or February to run out of numbers. Incidentally, yesterday I was the moderator of a panel on the impact of the global recession on national migration policies in Amsterdam....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/h1b-numbers-down-to-final-10000.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/h1b-numbers-down-to-final-10000.html)
more...
keaby
03-05 04:36 PM
Can someone inform if the pre tax Health Insurace premiums deducted in pay roll are computed towards meeting the LCA wage.
This deduction is not visible in W2 earnings..
This deduction is not visible in W2 earnings..
2010 Oil Paintings We are a
.jpg "Donald Zolan#39;s Oil Paintings")
mambarg
07-28 02:52 PM
I hear from multiple sources that a concurrently filed 485/140 with 140 in premium is the fastest way to process.
Does this make sense ?
It could be as 485 does not have a A number till 140 is approved.
Once 140 is approved, then have to open the corresponding 485 and enter that information and proceed with its processing ????
So I believe this one is faster than even the approved 140 case submission of 485 ?
Any comments ?
Does anyone have insight or more info on this.
I just want to know if 485 filed with 140 approved is faster or slower than filing 140PP/485 concurrently ???
Does this make sense ?
It could be as 485 does not have a A number till 140 is approved.
Once 140 is approved, then have to open the corresponding 485 and enter that information and proceed with its processing ????
So I believe this one is faster than even the approved 140 case submission of 485 ?
Any comments ?
Does anyone have insight or more info on this.
I just want to know if 485 filed with 140 approved is faster or slower than filing 140PP/485 concurrently ???
more...
alahiri
07-02 12:16 PM
The visa bulletin says "Effective Monday July 2, 2007 there will be no further authorizations inresponse to requests for Employment-based preference cases. All numbers available to these categories under the FY-2007 annual numerical limitation"
But doesnt that mean that no I485 authorizations will happen but filing can still be done and EAD received as de facto?
Please ask your respective lawyers to clarify this with USCICS/DOS.
But doesnt that mean that no I485 authorizations will happen but filing can still be done and EAD received as de facto?
Please ask your respective lawyers to clarify this with USCICS/DOS.
hair Impression Oil Painting (LDS-
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
08-11 10:10 AM
I know that the EAD card comes directly to the applicant and not to the attorney.
What about RFE on EAD? Does that too come directly to the applicant?
Pls lets know when you get your EAD. It would be interesting to see how long it takes with this avalanche of EAD applications
What about RFE on EAD? Does that too come directly to the applicant?
Pls lets know when you get your EAD. It would be interesting to see how long it takes with this avalanche of EAD applications
more...
Rudy2098
08-08 06:38 PM
I got my visa B-1, B-2 on march 2000 since them i stay here but before i was here ilegal ( not visa) but i had two children 1990 and 1994 here and both are american. I got married now and my husband is going to the document !-130 ,1-485 ectt...
THIS IS MY QUESTION I COME LEGALY BUT WITH MY CHILDREN the will know that was ilegal from 1990 to 1990. what will happen to my . any case similar case:(:( like my. please PLEASE HELP ME .
THIS IS MY QUESTION I COME LEGALY BUT WITH MY CHILDREN the will know that was ilegal from 1990 to 1990. what will happen to my . any case similar case:(:( like my. please PLEASE HELP ME .
hot oil paintings ken
aspiration
06-18 10:48 AM
Hello Senior Members,
I have just started a thread to ask if there is any need to call our local senators for co-sponsoring S.3084 ( Barbara Boxer), which is identical bill in Senate for HR 6039.
Is core working to get similar bills for HR.5882 and HR 5921 to get introduced in Senate?
If the question is inappropriate at this time then kindly close the thread.
Thanks.
I have just started a thread to ask if there is any need to call our local senators for co-sponsoring S.3084 ( Barbara Boxer), which is identical bill in Senate for HR 6039.
Is core working to get similar bills for HR.5882 and HR 5921 to get introduced in Senate?
If the question is inappropriate at this time then kindly close the thread.
Thanks.
more...
house Porter oil paintings
bdt5897
09-29 05:25 PM
I am a US Citizen and just married an immigrant. Her situation is interesting. Upon arrival to the U.S. she was detained and an I275 was filled out but not submitted. Apparently, her visa had been expired due to an overstay in the distant past. The result of the detention was a Paroled status stamped on her pasport. No I-94
We met shortly after her entry and are currently maried. We want to self-file the I485/I130 papers but don't know how to proceed without an I94 number. If we submit an I102 will she get an I94 replacement or will they reduse based upon her Paroled status, whcih she has overstayed?
Please Help...
We met shortly after her entry and are currently maried. We want to self-file the I485/I130 papers but don't know how to proceed without an I94 number. If we submit an I102 will she get an I94 replacement or will they reduse based upon her Paroled status, whcih she has overstayed?
Please Help...
tattoo Oil paintings 2008 -
humsuplou
06-10 06:53 PM
Is it easy to do that myself? Or do I need to go through an attorney?
Please advise.
Thanks!
Please advise.
Thanks!
more...
pictures Oregon Trail Oil Painting
bhp2301
01-15 05:10 PM
Hi Please help...
My last day at my job will be Feb 2nd.(COmpany A)
I have filed for h1b transfer with company B .But I am asked that i can only join company B after h1b approval(not with reciept).I will be in legal status while in process.(COS)
Now in the meantime if I find a job with company C (while my h1b transfer with company B is in process) ...can i transfer my h1b again while h1b trasnfer with company B is in process and company A has sent revoking notice.
-Thanks
My last day at my job will be Feb 2nd.(COmpany A)
I have filed for h1b transfer with company B .But I am asked that i can only join company B after h1b approval(not with reciept).I will be in legal status while in process.(COS)
Now in the meantime if I find a job with company C (while my h1b transfer with company B is in process) ...can i transfer my h1b again while h1b trasnfer with company B is in process and company A has sent revoking notice.
-Thanks
dresses purchasing oil paintings
itsmesabby
12-11 03:54 PM
Can anybody shed some light on this ? Would really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Alok
Thanks,
Alok
more...
makeup wholesale china oil paintings
vik123
02-14 03:16 PM
Read the House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr statement
http://judiciary.house.gov/OversightOpeningStatement.aspx?ID=89
http://judiciary.house.gov/OversightOpeningStatement.aspx?ID=89
girlfriend Modern Art Abstract Oil
desi3933
06-18 03:17 PM
Hi,
If the labor from BEC gets approved and subsequent I140 as well, is it possible to request only the priority date change for the I485?
Not refering to replace the I140. IS IT POSSIBLE TO JUST REQUEST THE PRIORITY DATE?
Yes.
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
If the labor from BEC gets approved and subsequent I140 as well, is it possible to request only the priority date change for the I485?
Not refering to replace the I140. IS IT POSSIBLE TO JUST REQUEST THE PRIORITY DATE?
Yes.
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
hairstyles oil painting collection
Canuck
01-11 02:53 AM
Hi,
I've been in the bay area of California for the past 10 months. I'm a Canadian from Toronto. I've been following this green card mess for the past 10 months and was well aware of it even while I was living back in Canada. I would like to join the Norcal chapter of IV to contribute my thoughts towards resolving this situation.
Please let me know how I can join the Norcal chapter.
Thanks.
I've been in the bay area of California for the past 10 months. I'm a Canadian from Toronto. I've been following this green card mess for the past 10 months and was well aware of it even while I was living back in Canada. I would like to join the Norcal chapter of IV to contribute my thoughts towards resolving this situation.
Please let me know how I can join the Norcal chapter.
Thanks.
yaseen82
03-17 08:23 AM
Hi Experts,
My wife is on H4 visa and has started her MS in CS in Jan. She applied for her change of status to F1 visa on 15 th feb. As of today (17th March), her approval notice hasnt come and her H4 is expiring on 31st March. I am not even able to follow her case online on USCIS coz her return recipt number is not updated at all. This is quite common I have heard.
My question is, should we also apply for her H4 extension before 31st of this month so that in case her approval for F1 does not come before her H4 expires and in worst case it gets rejects, she still wont be out of status coz her H4 renewal application is in place or am i just being too paranoid and should just wait for her F1 to come??
Thanks.
My wife is on H4 visa and has started her MS in CS in Jan. She applied for her change of status to F1 visa on 15 th feb. As of today (17th March), her approval notice hasnt come and her H4 is expiring on 31st March. I am not even able to follow her case online on USCIS coz her return recipt number is not updated at all. This is quite common I have heard.
My question is, should we also apply for her H4 extension before 31st of this month so that in case her approval for F1 does not come before her H4 expires and in worst case it gets rejects, she still wont be out of status coz her H4 renewal application is in place or am i just being too paranoid and should just wait for her F1 to come??
Thanks.
newuser
03-11 03:54 PM
No one from Vermont?
No comments:
Post a Comment