Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
wallpaper South Sudanese voted
learning01
03-23 08:56 PM
What's your point? If you can't analyze, let's know.
Check This
Check This
inalimbo
08-16 07:29 PM
I am in my 5th yr of H1, and my H1 status will expire next year on Nov 1, 2011.
My I140 filed and is with the appeal Office since jan 2009, with no decision.
I wanted to know what my options are with the current scenario.
� What are the chances of this appeal being approved? ( it was denied based on 5 yrs of education vs 6 years)
� If the appeal is denied, can I transfer the Labor to an EB3, with the same Priority Date?
� Since there is no decision yet, do I have to file another Labor cert ( a new one) for H1 extension.
� How can I still maintain this priority date?
� If I have to file a new Labor cert, can that be done in EB2,with a different job title?
My I140 filed and is with the appeal Office since jan 2009, with no decision.
I wanted to know what my options are with the current scenario.
� What are the chances of this appeal being approved? ( it was denied based on 5 yrs of education vs 6 years)
� If the appeal is denied, can I transfer the Labor to an EB3, with the same Priority Date?
� Since there is no decision yet, do I have to file another Labor cert ( a new one) for H1 extension.
� How can I still maintain this priority date?
� If I have to file a new Labor cert, can that be done in EB2,with a different job title?
2011 Map. Juba, Sudan. Juba, Sudan
raj7480
11-16 02:07 PM
My wife will be coming back from India during first week of Dec thru IAD. She has some type of infection in few of her fingers with few blisters. I am worried her fingerprinting at POE may not work and may show an error. Has anyone encountered this issue ever? Do they capture all 10 fingers? Her infection is only in few fingers.
more...
plakshmi
08-28 11:00 AM
Any help on this question?
Macaca
11-13 10:19 AM
The Can't-Win Democratic Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201418.html) By E. J. Dionne Jr. | Washington Post, November 13, 2007
Democrats in Congress are discovering what it's like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.
Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?
Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party's presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton-- who has been in Washington since her husband's election as president in 1992 -- is to criticize politics as usual.
At this weekend's Democratic fundraising dinner in Des Moines, Obama and Edwards not only attacked Bush fiercely but also issued broadsides against the larger status quo.
When Obama assailed "the same old Washington textbook campaigns" and declared that he was "sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans," he was aiming at Clinton. But Obama was echoing what many in his party have been saying about their congressional leadership.
And when Edwards said that "Washington is awash with corporate money, with lobbyists who pass it out, with politicians who ask for it," he was criticizing a system in which his own party is implicated.
It makes sense for Democratic presidential candidates to distance themselves from the party's Washington wing. A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the performance of Democratic congressional leaders, an increase in dissatisfaction of 18 points since February. Among Democrats, disapproval of their own leaders rose from 16 percent in February to 35 percent now; in the same period, disapproval among independents rose from 41 percent to 56 percent.
Democrats in Congress say that their achievements of a minimum-wage increase, lobbying reform, improvements in the student loan program and last week's override of Bush's veto of a $23 billion water-projects bill are being overlooked -- and that Bush and his congressional allies have systematically blocked even bipartisan efforts to produce further results.
For example: The increases in financing for the State Children's Health Insurance Program passed after Democrats made a slew of concessions to Republicans to win broad GOP support. But in the House, Democrats were short of the votes needed to override the president's veto, so the proposal languishes.
Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, notes that he has bargained productively with Republicans and that his budget bills have secured dozens of their votes. But the president seems intent on a budget confrontation.
In a letter to Bush on Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to underscore the president's role in the stalemate by calling for a "dialogue" to settle budget differences that "have never been so great that we cannot reach agreement on a spending plan that meets the needs of the American people."
They went on: "Key to this dialogue, however, is some willingness on your part to actually find common ground. Thus far, we have seen only a hard line drawn and a demand that we send only legislation that reflects your cuts to critical priorities of the American people."
Pelosi and Reid have a point, and they want Bush to get the blame for a budget impasse. But Bush seems to have decided that if he can't raise his own dismal approval ratings, he will drag the Democrats down with him. So far, that is what's happening.
Yet the budget is just one of the Democrats' problems. Their own partisans are furious that they have not been able to force a change in Bush's Iraq policy. In the Pew survey, 47 percent said the Democrats had not gone "far enough" in challenging Bush on Iraq. Many in the rank and file are also angry that the Democratic-led Senate let through the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general even though he declined to classify waterboarding as a form of torture.
Congressional Democrats are caught between two contradictory desires. One part of the electorate wants them to be practical dealmakers, another wants them to live up to the standard Obama set in the peroration of his Iowa speech when he praised those who "stood up . . . when it was risky, stood up when it was hard, stood up when it wasn't popular." Is there a handbook somewhere on how to be a courageous dealmaker? Pelosi and Reid would love to read it.
’08 clock ticks for Congress (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/08-clock-ticks-for-congress-2007-11-13.html) By Manu Raju | The Hill, November 13, 2007
Anti-War Voters Lash Out at Democrats They Helped Put in Office (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a9lDtrJGGVyg) By Nicholas Johnston | Bloomberg, November 13, 2007
Democrats in Congress are discovering what it's like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.
Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?
Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party's presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton-- who has been in Washington since her husband's election as president in 1992 -- is to criticize politics as usual.
At this weekend's Democratic fundraising dinner in Des Moines, Obama and Edwards not only attacked Bush fiercely but also issued broadsides against the larger status quo.
When Obama assailed "the same old Washington textbook campaigns" and declared that he was "sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans," he was aiming at Clinton. But Obama was echoing what many in his party have been saying about their congressional leadership.
And when Edwards said that "Washington is awash with corporate money, with lobbyists who pass it out, with politicians who ask for it," he was criticizing a system in which his own party is implicated.
It makes sense for Democratic presidential candidates to distance themselves from the party's Washington wing. A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the performance of Democratic congressional leaders, an increase in dissatisfaction of 18 points since February. Among Democrats, disapproval of their own leaders rose from 16 percent in February to 35 percent now; in the same period, disapproval among independents rose from 41 percent to 56 percent.
Democrats in Congress say that their achievements of a minimum-wage increase, lobbying reform, improvements in the student loan program and last week's override of Bush's veto of a $23 billion water-projects bill are being overlooked -- and that Bush and his congressional allies have systematically blocked even bipartisan efforts to produce further results.
For example: The increases in financing for the State Children's Health Insurance Program passed after Democrats made a slew of concessions to Republicans to win broad GOP support. But in the House, Democrats were short of the votes needed to override the president's veto, so the proposal languishes.
Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, notes that he has bargained productively with Republicans and that his budget bills have secured dozens of their votes. But the president seems intent on a budget confrontation.
In a letter to Bush on Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to underscore the president's role in the stalemate by calling for a "dialogue" to settle budget differences that "have never been so great that we cannot reach agreement on a spending plan that meets the needs of the American people."
They went on: "Key to this dialogue, however, is some willingness on your part to actually find common ground. Thus far, we have seen only a hard line drawn and a demand that we send only legislation that reflects your cuts to critical priorities of the American people."
Pelosi and Reid have a point, and they want Bush to get the blame for a budget impasse. But Bush seems to have decided that if he can't raise his own dismal approval ratings, he will drag the Democrats down with him. So far, that is what's happening.
Yet the budget is just one of the Democrats' problems. Their own partisans are furious that they have not been able to force a change in Bush's Iraq policy. In the Pew survey, 47 percent said the Democrats had not gone "far enough" in challenging Bush on Iraq. Many in the rank and file are also angry that the Democratic-led Senate let through the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general even though he declined to classify waterboarding as a form of torture.
Congressional Democrats are caught between two contradictory desires. One part of the electorate wants them to be practical dealmakers, another wants them to live up to the standard Obama set in the peroration of his Iowa speech when he praised those who "stood up . . . when it was risky, stood up when it was hard, stood up when it wasn't popular." Is there a handbook somewhere on how to be a courageous dealmaker? Pelosi and Reid would love to read it.
’08 clock ticks for Congress (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/08-clock-ticks-for-congress-2007-11-13.html) By Manu Raju | The Hill, November 13, 2007
Anti-War Voters Lash Out at Democrats They Helped Put in Office (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a9lDtrJGGVyg) By Nicholas Johnston | Bloomberg, November 13, 2007
more...
guyfromsg
07-18 10:56 PM
Wondering what the impact will be for 140 processing with the revised bulletin. Mine EB-2 has been pending in TSC for the last 5 months. It's my understanding we cannot use the AC-21 provisions like switching jobs without approved 140.
If 140 processing goes up to a year that would be really bad for new applicants. Atleast they should resume Premium processing. Any thoughts?
If 140 processing goes up to a year that would be really bad for new applicants. Atleast they should resume Premium processing. Any thoughts?
2010 085 km from north to south
ujjvalkoul
07-25 11:51 AM
Does anyone know how slow/fast/better is the Counsular Processing back in India if you ever become eligible to do that?
Is itbetter than applying 485 here and waiting .......ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is itbetter than applying 485 here and waiting .......ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
more...
peacocklover
04-16 09:34 AM
USCIS Policy Review Survey
(http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=44ab1ff1097f7210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dab1c7dcb507210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
Please complete the survey on or before April 29, 2010 by setting priorities for USCIS to look at our EB based GC issues (Please choose all EB types). By clicking this survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6N2T3BQ)link, you will leave USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov).
(http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=44ab1ff1097f7210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dab1c7dcb507210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
Please complete the survey on or before April 29, 2010 by setting priorities for USCIS to look at our EB based GC issues (Please choose all EB types). By clicking this survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6N2T3BQ)link, you will leave USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov).
hair north,Sudan to
Blog Feeds
07-26 05:40 AM
For several years, USCIS has been moving more and more to a secretive style of carrying out its role. Gone are the days when rules were published for comment. Examiners operate in anonymity. A two year appeals process and expensive fees mean that most people simply give up when their cases are denied. Examiners more and more frequently seem to be deciding cases based on their own made up standards rather than what the law requires. I'm happy to report that the American Immigration Lawyers Association is taking the agency to court. Director Mayorkas all but begged AILA to do...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/aila-sues-uscis-to-force-agency-to-open-up-on-h1b-process.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/aila-sues-uscis-to-force-agency-to-open-up-on-h1b-process.html)
more...
ameryki
01-03 07:33 PM
mate take it easy. my appli's were sent to NSC on august 1st and i still haven't seen any receipts come through for 485, ead nor AP. Although I have received Ead card and done finger printing so that way I know what my 485 appli # is but no info on the AP
hot Sudan#39;s north and south
JBattwann
12-17 06:54 PM
hi all,
I've found myself in abit of a predicament. My application for H1B extension is still pending (filed in September) and all I have right now is a Notice of Action from the immigration department.
While waiting, I have been laid off this week... I intend to return back to my home country before my last day (Dec 31).
My question is: Would I be able to make a round trip? That is to say, come back to the US on a tourist visa a week after I got home? I need to come back to sell what I own here and settle other things.
A friend told me that it is better to overstay for however long (maybe an extra week, I don't plan on too long) I need to get my things in order than try to take the chance of coming back. What do you think?
I appreciate any advice you can give.
James
I've found myself in abit of a predicament. My application for H1B extension is still pending (filed in September) and all I have right now is a Notice of Action from the immigration department.
While waiting, I have been laid off this week... I intend to return back to my home country before my last day (Dec 31).
My question is: Would I be able to make a round trip? That is to say, come back to the US on a tourist visa a week after I got home? I need to come back to sell what I own here and settle other things.
A friend told me that it is better to overstay for however long (maybe an extra week, I don't plan on too long) I need to get my things in order than try to take the chance of coming back. What do you think?
I appreciate any advice you can give.
James
more...
house Map of Sudan.
jthomas
06-01 03:35 PM
better way
1. H1B transfer
safe,
1. Use your EAD
2. AC-21
I have read a lot og H1B denials so i am myself going to file AC-21. (no H1B transfer)
1. H1B transfer
safe,
1. Use your EAD
2. AC-21
I have read a lot og H1B denials so i am myself going to file AC-21. (no H1B transfer)
tattoo Country Profile - Sudan
bigboy007
08-08 11:48 AM
^^^
more...
pictures Map of the Egyptian Red Sea
beautifulMind
05-07 10:11 AM
Yup..she was my boss at the University of south florida where she was the provost. Really admire here. A true dynamic lady
dresses The Sudan People#39;s Liberation
addsf345
11-19 12:50 AM
push and pull, and i finally decided to exercise my AC21 rights.....
AC21 pioneers, any recommendations on picking lawyers around NYC? specifically those that are fairly responsive and charge a fair price on all the procedures / docs that come with maintaining AOS, including a possible AC21 notification letter, renewing EAD/APs....
thank you for any guidances.
Bro, checkout this Thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22261).
AC21 pioneers, any recommendations on picking lawyers around NYC? specifically those that are fairly responsive and charge a fair price on all the procedures / docs that come with maintaining AOS, including a possible AC21 notification letter, renewing EAD/APs....
thank you for any guidances.
Bro, checkout this Thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22261).
more...
makeup Sudan#39;s President Omar Hassan
saiprasad77
10-01 02:36 PM
Hi All,
We have sent AOS, EAD and AP applications for my wife and me on August 7th. So far, we have received receipt notices for EAD, AP and AOS for my wife only with Notice Date of September 17th. To my surprise the Priority Date field is left blank on all the receipt notices. Just wanted to check with others who have received their spouse's receipt notices if this is usual and nothing to worry about.
Appreciate your response.
Thanks in advance,
-Sai
We have sent AOS, EAD and AP applications for my wife and me on August 7th. So far, we have received receipt notices for EAD, AP and AOS for my wife only with Notice Date of September 17th. To my surprise the Priority Date field is left blank on all the receipt notices. Just wanted to check with others who have received their spouse's receipt notices if this is usual and nothing to worry about.
Appreciate your response.
Thanks in advance,
-Sai
girlfriend North and south Sudan agree on
phillyag
01-24 10:07 AM
610-955-8290
phillyag
phillyag
hairstyles A South Sudanese man casts his
Blog Feeds
05-02 05:20 PM
The third of three immigrants on the the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is Professor Ahmed Zewail, the winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Dr. Zewail is a professor of Chemistry and Physics at Caltech and is the Director of Caltech's Physical Biology Center. Dr. Zewail describes his research as follows: [The Nobel Prize was awarded for] pioneering developments in femtoscience, which made it possible to observe atoms in motion, the transition states of molecular transformations. This work created the discipline of femtochemistry, which is concerned with molecular reactivity on the femtosecond (10�15 s) timescale....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/immigrant-of-the-day-ahmed-zewail-presidential-advisor.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/immigrant-of-the-day-ahmed-zewail-presidential-advisor.html)
makemygc
07-23 02:32 PM
Not yet....take my money...USCIS
There is already multiple threads for this.
There is already multiple threads for this.
obelix
06-15 03:04 PM
Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment