nixstor
07-06 11:20 AM
People are burying these posts as spam.. can we do something to make sure that doesnt happen?
I guess that tells how much public cares about our GC's. We want to spice up the story by adding other issues that can make our situation worse.
The only way we can get 4000 diggs is by having every info lurker digg it and individual comments.
I guess that tells how much public cares about our GC's. We want to spice up the story by adding other issues that can make our situation worse.
The only way we can get 4000 diggs is by having every info lurker digg it and individual comments.
wallpaper funny monday morning quotes.
shatabdi
07-18 06:39 PM
IV has accomplished the current mission in a very american way, of lobbying, on behalf,of a grassroots movement, and based on fairness. Besides acheiving the goals, it also demonstrates that the legal skilled community is ready to integrate into the American society.....
A small contribution for the future goals....$500 today and more to come....
Thank you IV for your time, effort and support through the emotional roller coaster.
A small contribution for the future goals....$500 today and more to come....
Thank you IV for your time, effort and support through the emotional roller coaster.
Totoro
05-02 01:41 PM
it is shame on IRS!! listen, everyone is paying tax. if we are able to file tax as couple with itin for the spouse, why are they not using the same approach for the stimulus package. Do they not aware of this section of h1b visa holders who are paying taxes and are not benefited. folks, some of you are in h1b and got your ead and ssn for your sponse are better off, there are folks who are still on h1b and spouse on h4 filed with itin is not eligible because i am not within in the <70k limit. this is ridiculus and shame for everyone who came up with the great idea of stimulating the economy and share our tax money to others and not with this disadvantage section of the people. it is absolutely shame for IRS or whoever came up with the super idea of not considering the folks who filed with ITIN. IRS listen, if anyone who is citizen, illegal or legal, if they pay tax, they are entitled to get this stimulus package.. it is really a shame on you whoever not recognized this affected section of people.
It is not the IRS's fault. They are just following the law. The IRS people are not very happy about this law either. It just makes their job that much more complicated.
One person you can thank for this is Lou Dobbs, who went off parroting the comments of FAIR.
http://firstfriday.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/congressional-republicans-to-lou-dobbs-youre-wrong-jerk-ok-we-added-the-jerk-bit/
It makes you wonder who is pulling the strings in Washington.
Again, if anyone is willing to share his or her story with the press, please contact me.
It is not the IRS's fault. They are just following the law. The IRS people are not very happy about this law either. It just makes their job that much more complicated.
One person you can thank for this is Lou Dobbs, who went off parroting the comments of FAIR.
http://firstfriday.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/congressional-republicans-to-lou-dobbs-youre-wrong-jerk-ok-we-added-the-jerk-bit/
It makes you wonder who is pulling the strings in Washington.
Again, if anyone is willing to share his or her story with the press, please contact me.
2011 pictures pictures monday quotes funny. monday quotes funny. funny monday
danila
07-25 08:40 AM
As I already stated, it is proven beyond the point that DOL and USCIS has only the ability to count the numbers. They do not even know exactly how much labor is pending by country. The same is true for I140 as well.
There is confusion even about how the count works. When your name is struck at FBI name check, it is not counted as backlog itself by USCIS anymore :( [I vaguely remember someone posting this quoting some reference from USCIS memo regarding reduction of processing times].
This is why in many cases you see the sudden forward movement in PD followed by heavy retrogression. Historically those who got approved when the PD is moved forward are always lucky.
Thanks
It is mentioned in the Ombudsman report.
There is confusion even about how the count works. When your name is struck at FBI name check, it is not counted as backlog itself by USCIS anymore :( [I vaguely remember someone posting this quoting some reference from USCIS memo regarding reduction of processing times].
This is why in many cases you see the sudden forward movement in PD followed by heavy retrogression. Historically those who got approved when the PD is moved forward are always lucky.
Thanks
It is mentioned in the Ombudsman report.
more...
Humhongekamyab
09-10 11:49 AM
I don't know if anybody has noticed it but the dates for EB-2 for VB October 2007 was April 1, 2004 and for VB October 2008 is April 1, 2003. That is a retrogression of 1 year - not good. :mad:
loudobbs
09-10 09:25 AM
meant to say not illegal immigrants....:o:o
and i am NOT the real Lou Dobbs. But in all seriousness guys, I think we really have to wake up. We are not illegal immigrants....
And we are not asking for Amnesty...
There is no deying the fact that this country has benefited from us much than us. How about some moral abligation and sense of fairness from this great country???
and i am NOT the real Lou Dobbs. But in all seriousness guys, I think we really have to wake up. We are not illegal immigrants....
And we are not asking for Amnesty...
There is no deying the fact that this country has benefited from us much than us. How about some moral abligation and sense of fairness from this great country???
more...
eb3_nepa
07-14 03:42 PM
Done!!
Done contributing or updating your signature :)?
Done contributing or updating your signature :)?
2010 hair monday quotes funny.
immig4me
05-04 08:57 AM
This campaign starts at 4:00 PM EST on 29th April, 2010 and will run until the end of next week. We request all IV members to call the Senate offices listed below between 9:00 AM EST and 5:00 PM EST.
So, this Campaign runs for another 3 days, IV members need to pick up the phones and start calling. Remember, if no bill is put forth before the end of May, it will be legislatively impossible to take CIR this year.
It all boils down to, how much are we willing to help our own cause.
So, this Campaign runs for another 3 days, IV members need to pick up the phones and start calling. Remember, if no bill is put forth before the end of May, it will be legislatively impossible to take CIR this year.
It all boils down to, how much are we willing to help our own cause.
more...
hpandey
03-04 05:42 PM
One last question, if you don't mind.
I assume yours is a conventional loan, how much equity do you have on your home, and how much down payment did you make on your home purchase first time?
I have a 30 Year fixed loan. I made more than 20% downpayment and since I bought my house only few months back not much change in equity yet.
I assume yours is a conventional loan, how much equity do you have on your home, and how much down payment did you make on your home purchase first time?
I have a 30 Year fixed loan. I made more than 20% downpayment and since I bought my house only few months back not much change in equity yet.
hair monday quotes funny.
vkannan
02-23 01:42 PM
people,
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Well, I had a Infopass last week to check on a Soft LUD on my I-140, I heard slightly different story, they did not say adjudicating the EB application, but Process the EB application, which I guess what they were saying is pre-adjudicating the cases, in the last few weeks with lot of cases being transferred (both EB2/EB3) to different offices, pre-adjudicating the cases makes sense....but hey, we are talking about USCIS here, we never know, whatever you heard could be true too......
One piece of information that made me happy reading your comment was "a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff", this is good news.....but wondering what does legal/illegal mean to USCIS anyway......and how does it help us from retrogression point of view??
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Well, I had a Infopass last week to check on a Soft LUD on my I-140, I heard slightly different story, they did not say adjudicating the EB application, but Process the EB application, which I guess what they were saying is pre-adjudicating the cases, in the last few weeks with lot of cases being transferred (both EB2/EB3) to different offices, pre-adjudicating the cases makes sense....but hey, we are talking about USCIS here, we never know, whatever you heard could be true too......
One piece of information that made me happy reading your comment was "a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff", this is good news.....but wondering what does legal/illegal mean to USCIS anyway......and how does it help us from retrogression point of view??
more...
chintu25
07-15 05:33 PM
�For all things difficult to acquire, the intelligent person works with perseverance.�
Lao Tzu
:cool:
Lao Tzu
:cool:
hot funny monday quotes. funny
fairboy
07-24 07:56 PM
Any advice? Anything at all?
But it did not help much. Basically, when you call PBEC if you come across the switch board operator, who usually sits in the forenoon sessions, you will not have any luck at all. She would ask you to send any queries/questions thru your attorney. I called both DOL and PBEC numbers several times. DOL people, while souding helpful, always said that they are helpless. As for PBEC, most times, I ran into this operator who gruffly told me to talk to my lawyer. I did talk to someone other than the switch board operator on a few occassions and they did give me some useful information. I then used that information to pester my attorney to take some action. I found it is generally best to call on Wednesdays/Thursdays during afternoon sessions. This is just my personal observation. In your case, there is nothing wrong in trying, is there? It is better to try and fail than not trying at all...
My LC application with a PD of Dec 2002 has been rotting at PBEC and finally ad for my case started appearing on AJE web site last week. My attorney has not received any thing at all. Mind you, in my case the recruitment efforts were completed long before it was forwarded to PBEC. It is precisely for this reason my application was 'unfit' for conversion to RIR. They now insist upon doing recruitment all over again. Neither my employer nor my attorney is ever involved in thid PBEC recruitment. The horror never ends...
Go ahead and call. You might get lucky and actually talk to the analyst. When you start your conversation do not start off with request for information. Say that you found a problem with your case in screenshot or something like that. Any thing that makes your conversation separate from the rest. Goodluck.
fb
But it did not help much. Basically, when you call PBEC if you come across the switch board operator, who usually sits in the forenoon sessions, you will not have any luck at all. She would ask you to send any queries/questions thru your attorney. I called both DOL and PBEC numbers several times. DOL people, while souding helpful, always said that they are helpless. As for PBEC, most times, I ran into this operator who gruffly told me to talk to my lawyer. I did talk to someone other than the switch board operator on a few occassions and they did give me some useful information. I then used that information to pester my attorney to take some action. I found it is generally best to call on Wednesdays/Thursdays during afternoon sessions. This is just my personal observation. In your case, there is nothing wrong in trying, is there? It is better to try and fail than not trying at all...
My LC application with a PD of Dec 2002 has been rotting at PBEC and finally ad for my case started appearing on AJE web site last week. My attorney has not received any thing at all. Mind you, in my case the recruitment efforts were completed long before it was forwarded to PBEC. It is precisely for this reason my application was 'unfit' for conversion to RIR. They now insist upon doing recruitment all over again. Neither my employer nor my attorney is ever involved in thid PBEC recruitment. The horror never ends...
Go ahead and call. You might get lucky and actually talk to the analyst. When you start your conversation do not start off with request for information. Say that you found a problem with your case in screenshot or something like that. Any thing that makes your conversation separate from the rest. Goodluck.
fb
more...
house house funny monday quotes
Milind123
09-12 06:03 PM
Thankyou ska_iit EAD rangaswamy and imm_pro.
All, please remember my intention is to motivate people who never contributed so far and who start
a $50 monthly contribution for at least six months. I am going to do a one time contribution of $50
for all such contributions (limits apply which I still did not disclose)
Anyway good start. ska_iit EAD rangaswamy and imm_pro, please consider monthly contributions. imm_pro, you
are only 2 contributions (of $50) away from the target of $300.
While making my contribution I would like to thank all the people who have started their new monthly contribution.
I would feel bad if I miss their name while searching the thread, so please PM me.
Here are the details of my third contribution of $100
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 6:12 PM EDT
Google Order #761429932710772
All, please remember my intention is to motivate people who never contributed so far and who start
a $50 monthly contribution for at least six months. I am going to do a one time contribution of $50
for all such contributions (limits apply which I still did not disclose)
Anyway good start. ska_iit EAD rangaswamy and imm_pro, please consider monthly contributions. imm_pro, you
are only 2 contributions (of $50) away from the target of $300.
While making my contribution I would like to thank all the people who have started their new monthly contribution.
I would feel bad if I miss their name while searching the thread, so please PM me.
Here are the details of my third contribution of $100
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 6:12 PM EDT
Google Order #761429932710772
tattoo monday quotes funny. Monday Morning Quotes; Monday Morning Quotes
nixstor
07-06 10:06 AM
You need to change the SUBJECT also...
/***
FBI fingerprint bumping and checks are IGNORED for IMMIGRANTS - Can not believe it ? This is called HOMELAND SECURITY ???
How come USCIS / DOS can ignore CRITICAL FBI name check steps ?
***/
What the hell on earth is this? Do you know for sure they have ignored it? Do not add masala to the existing crap. Do you understand the consequences of these kind of spiced up stuff? We all would be sulking in the security check for ever, if DHS gets pissed off or gets a congressional hearing and the authorities get lambasted over this. You are seeing how doctors are being implicated in UK and all over. Security is the most important thing right now on this planet and western world is agog over security. I dont know from where Greg Siskind and Jay Solomon got the tip off. They tipped each of their hats off and put the story in our brains to run the show. Security is not a Joke. Do not make it a bigger issue unless you dont know whether it really has happened. The consequences can be pretty dangerous to the extent of revoking all the issued GC's in the past 20 days, if congress gets high on this. I dont know what lawyers want, but my understanding is none of us want to have negative consequences of this issue.
No matter who screwed up, we should be conveying the following message after we say that USCIS/DOS goofed up.
"The root cause of the situation is the inability of
a) DOS/USCIS to recapture the visa numbers from previous years
b) to carry forward the unused numbers for atleast one year
If congress makes the needed legislative changes to solve the above two issues, USCIS/DOS will not be in the ugliest predicaments like they are in right now"
Its our choice to make USCIS/DOS our enemies or we get compassionate to the situation considering how arcane the current laws are. We agree or not, we have to work with them going forward. Just that they are down and we are on a bashing spree right now doesnt mean that it will be situation for ever.
/***
FBI fingerprint bumping and checks are IGNORED for IMMIGRANTS - Can not believe it ? This is called HOMELAND SECURITY ???
How come USCIS / DOS can ignore CRITICAL FBI name check steps ?
***/
What the hell on earth is this? Do you know for sure they have ignored it? Do not add masala to the existing crap. Do you understand the consequences of these kind of spiced up stuff? We all would be sulking in the security check for ever, if DHS gets pissed off or gets a congressional hearing and the authorities get lambasted over this. You are seeing how doctors are being implicated in UK and all over. Security is the most important thing right now on this planet and western world is agog over security. I dont know from where Greg Siskind and Jay Solomon got the tip off. They tipped each of their hats off and put the story in our brains to run the show. Security is not a Joke. Do not make it a bigger issue unless you dont know whether it really has happened. The consequences can be pretty dangerous to the extent of revoking all the issued GC's in the past 20 days, if congress gets high on this. I dont know what lawyers want, but my understanding is none of us want to have negative consequences of this issue.
No matter who screwed up, we should be conveying the following message after we say that USCIS/DOS goofed up.
"The root cause of the situation is the inability of
a) DOS/USCIS to recapture the visa numbers from previous years
b) to carry forward the unused numbers for atleast one year
If congress makes the needed legislative changes to solve the above two issues, USCIS/DOS will not be in the ugliest predicaments like they are in right now"
Its our choice to make USCIS/DOS our enemies or we get compassionate to the situation considering how arcane the current laws are. We agree or not, we have to work with them going forward. Just that they are down and we are on a bashing spree right now doesnt mean that it will be situation for ever.
more...
pictures monday quotes funny. funny
Gravitation
12-05 03:40 PM
I'm getting MBA from Babson College in MA (top25). The total cost is $60K in just tuition. My employer pays appx. half of it.
It's a huge investment of not just money but time as well. You have no life for three years.
It's very rewarding to learn so many different subjects: Economy, Marketing, Accounting, Law, Leadership, Finance, Technology management, Organizational Behavior. I reach classes tired but come out fresh. It really broadens one's thinking.
I got my B. Tech. from India. It's great to have American Classroom experience.
Great Networking.
I still have 30 years of professional life ahead of me to use knowledge/expertise gained from MBA. I wouldn't trade this experience for anything.
Due to demographic shift in US, large shortage of middle-management is expected in coming decades. MBA can provide a real leg-up in career advancement.
At the same time... I can totally see when some people just go through the motions to get their MBA and do nothing with it. Don't approach it like just a degree. If you are committed to learning new skills, using them and improving yourself just a little everyday... Go for MBA.
Also, don't expect big bucks immediately following MBA. Class knowledge , combined with some experience afterwards will actually provide super returns. Most of the studies that look at salary increment right after MBA will come up with -v e RoI.
In a nutshell, there are many factors to consider in a decision about getting an MBA degree; tuition expense is not the biggest one. If you have any desire to get MBA, don't let others dissuade you.
It's a huge investment of not just money but time as well. You have no life for three years.
It's very rewarding to learn so many different subjects: Economy, Marketing, Accounting, Law, Leadership, Finance, Technology management, Organizational Behavior. I reach classes tired but come out fresh. It really broadens one's thinking.
I got my B. Tech. from India. It's great to have American Classroom experience.
Great Networking.
I still have 30 years of professional life ahead of me to use knowledge/expertise gained from MBA. I wouldn't trade this experience for anything.
Due to demographic shift in US, large shortage of middle-management is expected in coming decades. MBA can provide a real leg-up in career advancement.
At the same time... I can totally see when some people just go through the motions to get their MBA and do nothing with it. Don't approach it like just a degree. If you are committed to learning new skills, using them and improving yourself just a little everyday... Go for MBA.
Also, don't expect big bucks immediately following MBA. Class knowledge , combined with some experience afterwards will actually provide super returns. Most of the studies that look at salary increment right after MBA will come up with -v e RoI.
In a nutshell, there are many factors to consider in a decision about getting an MBA degree; tuition expense is not the biggest one. If you have any desire to get MBA, don't let others dissuade you.
dresses 2010 monday quotes funny monday quotes funny. monday quotes funny. funny
spicy_guy
08-12 12:05 PM
Also, how clearly he says, its for Money, and nothing else!
So we are easy target to mint money and we tolerate everything. wow!
So we are easy target to mint money and we tolerate everything. wow!
more...
makeup girlfriend funny monday morning quotes. Funny+monday+morning+;
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:03 PM
Los Angeles - District 36 100.0% of 399 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jane Harman (I)
Dem 92,222 63.5%
Brian Gibson
GOP 46,312 31.9%
James Smith PFP 3,979 2.7%
Mike Binkley Lib 2,757 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 37 100.0% of 333 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Juanita Millender-McDonald (I)
Dem 69,901 82.4%
Herb Peters Lib 14,925 17.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 38 100.0% of 294 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Grace Napolitano (I)
Dem 66,442 75.5%
Sidney Street
GOP 21,606 24.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 39 100.0% of 305 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Linda Sanchez (I)
Dem 64,274 66.0%
James Andion
GOP 33,138 34.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 46 100.0% of 147 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 30,319 54.1%
Jim Brandt
Dem 23,743 42.3%
Dennis Chang Lib 2,007 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 190 62.3%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 115 37.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 19 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 16,049 64.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 8,739 35.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Marin - District 6 100.0% of 210 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 52,217 71.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 18,872 25.7%
Richard Friesen Lib 2,423 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mariposa - District 19 100.0% of 21 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 4,185 59.1%
TJ Cox
Dem 2,901 40.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mendocino - District 1 100.0% of 208 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 12,185 68.1%
John Jones
GOP 4,653 26.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 688 3.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 364 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Merced - District 18 100.0% of 114 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 23,752 64.5%
John Kanno
GOP 13,078 35.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Modoc - District 4 100.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 2,174 59.3%
Charlie Brown
Dem 1,230 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 262 7.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mono - District 25 100.0% of 13 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 1,935 52.6%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,600 43.5%
David Erickson Lib 147 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Monterey - District 17 100.0% of 184 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 40,157 72.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 15,612 28.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Napa - District 1 100.0% of 115 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 20,225 68.4%
John Jones
GOP 8,280 28.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 661 2.2%
Timothy Stock PFP 403 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Nevada - District 4 100.0% of 101 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Charlie Brown
Dem 17,026 54.0%
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 12,840 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 1,649 5.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 40 100.0% of 443 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ed Royce (I)
GOP 76,250 66.3%
Florice Hoffman
Dem 35,744 31.1%
Philip Inman Lib 2,993 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 44 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 17,129 67.8%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 7,510 29.7%
Kevin Akin PFP 632 2.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 46 100.0% of 390 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 60,490 61.7%
Jim Brandt
Dem 33,907 34.6%
Dennis Chang Lib 3,693 3.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 47 100.0% of 256 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Loretta Sanchez (I)
Dem 31,656 61.9%
Tan Nguyen
GOP 19,525 38.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 48 100.0% of 575 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Campbell (I)
GOP 86,479 59.0%
Steve Young
Dem 55,839 38.1%
Bruce Cohen Lib 4,264 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Placer - District 4 100.0% of 365 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 44,469 48.9%
Charlie Brown
Dem 42,387 46.6%
Dan Warren Lib 4,153 4.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Plumas - District 4 100.0% of 29 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,161 50.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,645 44.5%
Dan Warren Lib 393 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 41 100.0% of 188 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 11,802 61.3%
Louie Contreras
Dem 7,445 38.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 44 100.0% of 329 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 46,465 56.0%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 33,849 40.8%
Kevin Akin PFP 2,664 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 45 100.0% of 559 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mary Bono (I)
GOP 62,007 59.4%
David Roth
Dem 42,384 40.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 49 100.0% of 206 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 24,100 61.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 13,624 34.8%
Lars Grossmith Lib 1,389 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 3 100.0% of 522 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 75,352 58.8%
Bill Durston
Dem 49,473 38.6%
Douglas Tuma Lib 2,013 1.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 1,330 1.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 4 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,255 54.6%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,174 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 371 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 5 100.0% of 410 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Doris Matsui (I)
Dem 76,013 70.9%
Claire Yan
GOP 25,028 23.3%
Jeff Kravitz Grn 4,728 4.4%
John Reiger PFP 1,483 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 10 100.0% of 11 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 275 58.1%
Darcy Linn
GOP 198 41.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Benito - District 17 100.0% of 57 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 6,506 69.9%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 2,808 30.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 25 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 12,506 53.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 9,692 41.4%
David Erickson Lib 1,189 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 26 100.0% of 148 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 27,333 56.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 18,452 37.8%
Ted Brown Lib 1,803 3.7%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,185 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 41 100.0% of 372 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 70,209 67.8%
Louie Contreras
Dem 33,332 32.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 43 100.0% of 287 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Joe Baca (I)
Dem 43,571 65.0%
Scott Folkens
GOP 23,432 35.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jane Harman (I)
Dem 92,222 63.5%
Brian Gibson
GOP 46,312 31.9%
James Smith PFP 3,979 2.7%
Mike Binkley Lib 2,757 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 37 100.0% of 333 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Juanita Millender-McDonald (I)
Dem 69,901 82.4%
Herb Peters Lib 14,925 17.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 38 100.0% of 294 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Grace Napolitano (I)
Dem 66,442 75.5%
Sidney Street
GOP 21,606 24.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 39 100.0% of 305 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Linda Sanchez (I)
Dem 64,274 66.0%
James Andion
GOP 33,138 34.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 46 100.0% of 147 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 30,319 54.1%
Jim Brandt
Dem 23,743 42.3%
Dennis Chang Lib 2,007 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 190 62.3%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 115 37.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 19 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 16,049 64.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 8,739 35.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Marin - District 6 100.0% of 210 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 52,217 71.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 18,872 25.7%
Richard Friesen Lib 2,423 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mariposa - District 19 100.0% of 21 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 4,185 59.1%
TJ Cox
Dem 2,901 40.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mendocino - District 1 100.0% of 208 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 12,185 68.1%
John Jones
GOP 4,653 26.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 688 3.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 364 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Merced - District 18 100.0% of 114 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 23,752 64.5%
John Kanno
GOP 13,078 35.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Modoc - District 4 100.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 2,174 59.3%
Charlie Brown
Dem 1,230 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 262 7.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mono - District 25 100.0% of 13 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 1,935 52.6%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,600 43.5%
David Erickson Lib 147 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Monterey - District 17 100.0% of 184 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 40,157 72.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 15,612 28.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Napa - District 1 100.0% of 115 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 20,225 68.4%
John Jones
GOP 8,280 28.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 661 2.2%
Timothy Stock PFP 403 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Nevada - District 4 100.0% of 101 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Charlie Brown
Dem 17,026 54.0%
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 12,840 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 1,649 5.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 40 100.0% of 443 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ed Royce (I)
GOP 76,250 66.3%
Florice Hoffman
Dem 35,744 31.1%
Philip Inman Lib 2,993 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 44 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 17,129 67.8%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 7,510 29.7%
Kevin Akin PFP 632 2.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 46 100.0% of 390 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 60,490 61.7%
Jim Brandt
Dem 33,907 34.6%
Dennis Chang Lib 3,693 3.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 47 100.0% of 256 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Loretta Sanchez (I)
Dem 31,656 61.9%
Tan Nguyen
GOP 19,525 38.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 48 100.0% of 575 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Campbell (I)
GOP 86,479 59.0%
Steve Young
Dem 55,839 38.1%
Bruce Cohen Lib 4,264 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Placer - District 4 100.0% of 365 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 44,469 48.9%
Charlie Brown
Dem 42,387 46.6%
Dan Warren Lib 4,153 4.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Plumas - District 4 100.0% of 29 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,161 50.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,645 44.5%
Dan Warren Lib 393 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 41 100.0% of 188 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 11,802 61.3%
Louie Contreras
Dem 7,445 38.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 44 100.0% of 329 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 46,465 56.0%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 33,849 40.8%
Kevin Akin PFP 2,664 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 45 100.0% of 559 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mary Bono (I)
GOP 62,007 59.4%
David Roth
Dem 42,384 40.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 49 100.0% of 206 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 24,100 61.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 13,624 34.8%
Lars Grossmith Lib 1,389 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 3 100.0% of 522 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 75,352 58.8%
Bill Durston
Dem 49,473 38.6%
Douglas Tuma Lib 2,013 1.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 1,330 1.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 4 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,255 54.6%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,174 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 371 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 5 100.0% of 410 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Doris Matsui (I)
Dem 76,013 70.9%
Claire Yan
GOP 25,028 23.3%
Jeff Kravitz Grn 4,728 4.4%
John Reiger PFP 1,483 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 10 100.0% of 11 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 275 58.1%
Darcy Linn
GOP 198 41.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Benito - District 17 100.0% of 57 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 6,506 69.9%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 2,808 30.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 25 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 12,506 53.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 9,692 41.4%
David Erickson Lib 1,189 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 26 100.0% of 148 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 27,333 56.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 18,452 37.8%
Ted Brown Lib 1,803 3.7%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,185 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 41 100.0% of 372 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 70,209 67.8%
Louie Contreras
Dem 33,332 32.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 43 100.0% of 287 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Joe Baca (I)
Dem 43,571 65.0%
Scott Folkens
GOP 23,432 35.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
girlfriend Funny thoughts-Avoid
.jpg "pictures funny quotes")
beppenyc
03-16 10:51 AM
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0316Immigration16-ON.html
Senators debate immigrant worker measure
Associated Press
Mar. 16, 2006 09:35 AM
WASHINGTON - Senators writing a major immigration law overhaul bill moved Thursday toward accepting an approach under which undocumented immigrants could stay in the United States while working toward permanent residence and eventual citizenship.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., stressed that his plan moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee would not constitute an amnesty, a policy rejected by the Bush administration and most Americans, according to polls. Kennedy said it would not give the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally any advantage over the 3 million living overseas while waiting for a decision on green card applications.
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said the panel would consider the proposal put forward by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., when it reconvenes on March 27 after a weeklong recess. advertisement
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has made clear that immigration reform will be on the chamber's floor that week, regardless of whether the Judiciary Committee comes up with a comprehensive bill.
Congress, at the urging of President Bush, has made comprehensive immigration reform a top priority for this election-year session, pushing forward proposals combining immigration enforcement, a guest worker program and a policy toward people living in the country illegally.
The future treatment of undocumented immigrants, Kennedy said, "really is the heart and soul of this whole undertaking."
The McCain-Kennedy plan would allow those in the country illegally to obtain six-year nonimmigrant visas under which they could work in the country and travel outside the country. They would have to pay a $1,000 fine and undergo background checks.
After six years, the immigrant who pays back taxes, is learning English and pays an additional $1,000 fine can apply for a green card, or permanent residency.
Specter, R-Pa., said the committee would vote on a version of the McCain-Kennedy proposal on the 27th. There would also be a vote on the chief alternative, offered by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that would give undocumented immigrants up to five years to leave the country. These immigrants could apply from their home country to return, either as temporary workers or for permanent residency.
"Our intention is not to strand anyone outside the country," Kyl said. But he said that the McCain-Kennedy plan would give an undocumented immigrant allowed to stay and work in the country a "huge advantage" over a person having to wait for years in his or her own country for a green card.
But with Democrats, and several Republicans, on the committee behind McCain-Kennedy, it appeared to have the edge.
Cornyn and Kennedy said they would work over the recess next week on the structure of a guest worker program, which would start out with 400,000 visas. The committee is also expected to take up a separate provision for temporary agriculture workers in preparation for debate on the floor.
Senators from both parties in the committee on Wednesday objected to voting on a bill before the panel reaches a consensus on guest workers. Several Republicans suggested that the Senate first deal with enforcement, and take up the guest worker issue later in the year.
"This is a very complicated bill," Specter said. "And I think we have to get it done right."
Bush, in a State of the Union address two years ago, urged Congress to create a worker program under which participants could gain legal status for a specific time and then be required to return home. It would not provide an automatic path to citizenship.
The House at the end of last year passed a bill that increases penalties for illegal immigration activities and requires employers to verify the legal status of their employees. But it did not address the guest worker issue, and critics argued that it was futile to try to close the border when demand for low-wage workers in this country remains so strong.
"We have a broken system," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday. "It needs to be fixed and it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way."
Senators debate immigrant worker measure
Associated Press
Mar. 16, 2006 09:35 AM
WASHINGTON - Senators writing a major immigration law overhaul bill moved Thursday toward accepting an approach under which undocumented immigrants could stay in the United States while working toward permanent residence and eventual citizenship.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., stressed that his plan moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee would not constitute an amnesty, a policy rejected by the Bush administration and most Americans, according to polls. Kennedy said it would not give the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally any advantage over the 3 million living overseas while waiting for a decision on green card applications.
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said the panel would consider the proposal put forward by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., when it reconvenes on March 27 after a weeklong recess. advertisement
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has made clear that immigration reform will be on the chamber's floor that week, regardless of whether the Judiciary Committee comes up with a comprehensive bill.
Congress, at the urging of President Bush, has made comprehensive immigration reform a top priority for this election-year session, pushing forward proposals combining immigration enforcement, a guest worker program and a policy toward people living in the country illegally.
The future treatment of undocumented immigrants, Kennedy said, "really is the heart and soul of this whole undertaking."
The McCain-Kennedy plan would allow those in the country illegally to obtain six-year nonimmigrant visas under which they could work in the country and travel outside the country. They would have to pay a $1,000 fine and undergo background checks.
After six years, the immigrant who pays back taxes, is learning English and pays an additional $1,000 fine can apply for a green card, or permanent residency.
Specter, R-Pa., said the committee would vote on a version of the McCain-Kennedy proposal on the 27th. There would also be a vote on the chief alternative, offered by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that would give undocumented immigrants up to five years to leave the country. These immigrants could apply from their home country to return, either as temporary workers or for permanent residency.
"Our intention is not to strand anyone outside the country," Kyl said. But he said that the McCain-Kennedy plan would give an undocumented immigrant allowed to stay and work in the country a "huge advantage" over a person having to wait for years in his or her own country for a green card.
But with Democrats, and several Republicans, on the committee behind McCain-Kennedy, it appeared to have the edge.
Cornyn and Kennedy said they would work over the recess next week on the structure of a guest worker program, which would start out with 400,000 visas. The committee is also expected to take up a separate provision for temporary agriculture workers in preparation for debate on the floor.
Senators from both parties in the committee on Wednesday objected to voting on a bill before the panel reaches a consensus on guest workers. Several Republicans suggested that the Senate first deal with enforcement, and take up the guest worker issue later in the year.
"This is a very complicated bill," Specter said. "And I think we have to get it done right."
Bush, in a State of the Union address two years ago, urged Congress to create a worker program under which participants could gain legal status for a specific time and then be required to return home. It would not provide an automatic path to citizenship.
The House at the end of last year passed a bill that increases penalties for illegal immigration activities and requires employers to verify the legal status of their employees. But it did not address the guest worker issue, and critics argued that it was futile to try to close the border when demand for low-wage workers in this country remains so strong.
"We have a broken system," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday. "It needs to be fixed and it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way."
hairstyles wallpaper monday quotes funny.
inspectorfox
09-14 06:45 AM
I don't agree with your opinion on blocking anyone from interfiling. You have a choice to file in any EB category. Share the reason why you filed EB3 instead of EB1? Grow some balls you efin crybaby!
GCwaitforever
05-02 09:37 AM
The only way to get the stimulus payment is to obtain a Social Security Number for �non-work� purposes. The SSA may issue an SSN to an alien under the following provision:
20 C.F.R. � 422.104(a)(3)
(i) You need a social security number to satisfy a Federal statute or regulation that requires you to have a social security number in order to receive a Federally-funded benefit to which you have otherwise established entitlement and you reside either in or outside the U.S.;
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/422/422-0104.htm
The Social Security Administration is required by federal law to issue Social Security Numbers to legal aliens who require them to receive federally funded benefits under Section 205(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Social Security Act, which states that the Social Security Administration is required to assign an SSN to �any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of a benefit funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.�
Good job Admin2.
Folks with ITINs,
Please file for SSNs quoting this stimulus package and get the refund. If someone tries and SSA refuses, we can take it up with legislators or even pursue litigation.
20 C.F.R. � 422.104(a)(3)
(i) You need a social security number to satisfy a Federal statute or regulation that requires you to have a social security number in order to receive a Federally-funded benefit to which you have otherwise established entitlement and you reside either in or outside the U.S.;
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/422/422-0104.htm
The Social Security Administration is required by federal law to issue Social Security Numbers to legal aliens who require them to receive federally funded benefits under Section 205(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Social Security Act, which states that the Social Security Administration is required to assign an SSN to �any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of a benefit funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.�
Good job Admin2.
Folks with ITINs,
Please file for SSNs quoting this stimulus package and get the refund. If someone tries and SSA refuses, we can take it up with legislators or even pursue litigation.
ragz4u
03-16 10:07 AM
The number to call is 202-737-3220. Tell the receptionist that the Judiciary Committee hearing cannot be heard from Dirksen Rm 226 and that it is extremely important for you to hear this live as it unfolds
If a lot of folks call, they will make sure it works!
If you call up, leave a post here so we know that you have called too....
Lets get going guys....
If a lot of folks call, they will make sure it works!
If you call up, leave a post here so we know that you have called too....
Lets get going guys....
No comments:
Post a Comment