Blog Feeds
12-30 12:20 PM
Often, when there is a great concentration of businesses focused on a specific industry in a particular geographic location, the area is called the "Silicon Valley" of and then you fill in the blank. That's a tribute to Silicon Valley in Northern California which is the home to many of America's great tech companies - Google, Apple, Intel, etc. For example, Charlotte is the Silicon Valley of banking. Nashville is the Silicon Valley of hospital firms. Well, it turns out the actual Silicon Valley is the Silicon Valley for America's ping-pong talent. All of those immigrant tech workers who came...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-rajul-sheth-ping-pong-guru.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-rajul-sheth-ping-pong-guru.html)
wallpaper The+lack+swan+poster
rajenk
12-02 03:32 PM
Category classification of EB2 or EB3 is done when filing I-140. Labor does not have any such classification. It all depends on the job requirement that decides EB2/EB3 at I-140 while filing.
I second hibworker on your question.
I second hibworker on your question.
pappu
03-31 11:03 AM
/\/\/
2011 lack swan poster art.
jackal.abcd
11-01 01:16 PM
I am on H1B expiring in Nov 2010.I am planning to leave the country for good and i am planning to still continue trading stocks online from my home country and pay Taxes for the profit/losses every year.. Is it okay to do it this way.. or any problems...
more...
Macaca
11-01 05:29 PM
Conservatives Launch Caucus (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_52/news/20766-1.html) By John Stanton | ROLL CALL STAFF, October 31, 2007
Frustrated by what they see as a party gone astray, a group of House and Senate conservatives led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) today will announce a new bicameral caucus aimed at returning fiscal restraint, ethics and national defense to the fore of the GOP's philosophical and policy platforms.
The group - which in addition to DeMint and Hensarling is made up of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) - will officially announce the creation of their new caucus - dubbed Reagan21. They also will unveil their "statement of policy commitment," which includes 10 key positions on issues ranging from Congressional earmarks to health care reform.
While participants are billing the new caucus as a complement to the leadership teams in place in the House and Senate, Republicans familiar with the project acknowledge that to a certain degree it is a challenge to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), because implicitly the call for a new direction is a rejection of the course they have steered along with President Bush.
"When you're saying, 'Here's the vision of what the party should be,' you're saying the vision isn't there right now," said a House Republican not directly involved with the effort.
A second Republican agreed, arguing that a more broad change in how the party runs is needed.
"Whenever there's a vacuum in elected or political leadership, there's a need to fill it. When you have leadership positions not resulting in leadership, people will go elsewhere," the second Republican said, adding the problems of the party go far beyond simple messaging conflicts.
"It's a fight for [the GOP's] soul, not just a superficial divide. There are people who believe it's the job of Republican Members to come here and send money home to their states and to expand government. And that's just not what rank-and-file party members want."
Today's announcement of the group's principles for reform of the Republican Party are the first in a series of steps that the caucus will take over the next several months. Members are in the process of setting up independent outside institutions - similar to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation - to support their activities, and they will have a Web site up and running in the next few weeks.
Although details of those plans were unclear at press time Tuesday, one member of the group said the caucus will use the foundation as a semi-independent apparatus to communicate with Republicans outside Washington, D.C., as well as the general public.
Although members of the group declined to comment on the caucus on the record, one Member involved said the lawmakers believe the GOP's elected leaders have strayed from the party's traditional fiscal conservative roots.
"A few of us here are trying to change the culture" of the GOP, the lawmaker said, adding that "the core values of the Republican Party are not being adhered to by the party inside Congress. But there's a yearning for it outside the Beltway."
According to Republicans familiar with the effort, it arose from meetings between DeMint, who chairs the Republican Steering Committee in the Senate, and Hensarling, who chairs the Republican Study Committee in the House. Both organizations are the hub for conservative efforts in the chambers, and following the disastrous 2006 election, DeMint and Hensarling began holding meetings in an effort to better coordinate their efforts.
Eventually, the two began to bring other lawmakers into these Member-only meetings. Following months of discussion, the group decided to start the caucus, choosing a name that would invoke the core fiscal principles of former President Ronald Reagan for the 21st century.
The principles - which new members will be required to make a pledge to follow and which will be the centerpiece of the group's legislative and public outreach efforts - cover a wide variety of issues. For instance, members of the caucus will be required to foreswear asking for any new earmarks in legislation. The principles also call for reforms to the tax code and entitlement programs, including the implementation of personal "ownership" of retirement security and health care decisions, according to a copy of a document obtained by Roll Call. Members of the caucus also will support expansion of intelligence and other national defense programs, as well as an aggressive border security approach to immigration.
While all of the members of the group would likely fall under the broad rubric of "social conservatives," the principles steer clear of issues like abortion or gay marriage. According to those involved in the effort, members of Reagan21, according to one, have decided that while those issues are important to them, they have decided to "focus on the fiscal policy issues that I think really killed us last year."
Republicans privately also applauded the decision to stay with traditional fiscal issues rather than expand the group's focus into social topics. One source noted that while most base Republican voters are fierce social conservatives, many independent voters and disaffected Democrats - who agree with the GOP on fiscal issues and ethics - are turned off by the party's heavy tilt toward its social wing.
According to GOP aides, the group has operated under strict confidentiality rules as it has hashed out how it will operate and what its mission should be - so much so that staff continue to have only a sketchy idea of what their bosses are envisioning. Additionally, the members of the group have agreed to not tip their hand to either Boehner or McConnell before today's news conference, although they have begun reaching out to like-minded Members in the House and Senate to join the group.
The formation of the caucus is the latest in a series of breaks between conservatives, particularly in the Senate, and the party's traditional power centers this year. DeMint and Coburn have openly and repeatedly attacked "Old Bulls" in the party like Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) for their use of earmarks. Additionally, conservatives openly broke with their leaders this spring over the immigration bill.
The Reagan21 member cautioned that the caucus's critique of current GOP positions should not be seen as members "tak[ing] a swipe at anybody" in leadership positions. "They've got a tough job and it's hard to get your arms around the whole party" in a way that could facilitate reform, the lawmaker explained, adding that Reagan21 participants see themselves as "the conscience of the Republican Party here" in Washington.
But reform will be key if Republicans are to avoid further electoral loses next year, this member said.
"Unless the Republicans get together and define themselves we're going to get caught in fog. ... I don't want to be Democrat-lite," the lawmaker said, adding that the group hopes to attract Members who have long been fiscal conservatives as well as new recruits. Reagan21 hopes "that a lot of these Republicans who like to think they can have it both ways - go home and talk like conservatives but come here and vote for whatever they want - will be forced to come to our side. We can't continue to allow a few people in our party continue to pervert what we are about."
Frustrated by what they see as a party gone astray, a group of House and Senate conservatives led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) today will announce a new bicameral caucus aimed at returning fiscal restraint, ethics and national defense to the fore of the GOP's philosophical and policy platforms.
The group - which in addition to DeMint and Hensarling is made up of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) - will officially announce the creation of their new caucus - dubbed Reagan21. They also will unveil their "statement of policy commitment," which includes 10 key positions on issues ranging from Congressional earmarks to health care reform.
While participants are billing the new caucus as a complement to the leadership teams in place in the House and Senate, Republicans familiar with the project acknowledge that to a certain degree it is a challenge to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), because implicitly the call for a new direction is a rejection of the course they have steered along with President Bush.
"When you're saying, 'Here's the vision of what the party should be,' you're saying the vision isn't there right now," said a House Republican not directly involved with the effort.
A second Republican agreed, arguing that a more broad change in how the party runs is needed.
"Whenever there's a vacuum in elected or political leadership, there's a need to fill it. When you have leadership positions not resulting in leadership, people will go elsewhere," the second Republican said, adding the problems of the party go far beyond simple messaging conflicts.
"It's a fight for [the GOP's] soul, not just a superficial divide. There are people who believe it's the job of Republican Members to come here and send money home to their states and to expand government. And that's just not what rank-and-file party members want."
Today's announcement of the group's principles for reform of the Republican Party are the first in a series of steps that the caucus will take over the next several months. Members are in the process of setting up independent outside institutions - similar to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation - to support their activities, and they will have a Web site up and running in the next few weeks.
Although details of those plans were unclear at press time Tuesday, one member of the group said the caucus will use the foundation as a semi-independent apparatus to communicate with Republicans outside Washington, D.C., as well as the general public.
Although members of the group declined to comment on the caucus on the record, one Member involved said the lawmakers believe the GOP's elected leaders have strayed from the party's traditional fiscal conservative roots.
"A few of us here are trying to change the culture" of the GOP, the lawmaker said, adding that "the core values of the Republican Party are not being adhered to by the party inside Congress. But there's a yearning for it outside the Beltway."
According to Republicans familiar with the effort, it arose from meetings between DeMint, who chairs the Republican Steering Committee in the Senate, and Hensarling, who chairs the Republican Study Committee in the House. Both organizations are the hub for conservative efforts in the chambers, and following the disastrous 2006 election, DeMint and Hensarling began holding meetings in an effort to better coordinate their efforts.
Eventually, the two began to bring other lawmakers into these Member-only meetings. Following months of discussion, the group decided to start the caucus, choosing a name that would invoke the core fiscal principles of former President Ronald Reagan for the 21st century.
The principles - which new members will be required to make a pledge to follow and which will be the centerpiece of the group's legislative and public outreach efforts - cover a wide variety of issues. For instance, members of the caucus will be required to foreswear asking for any new earmarks in legislation. The principles also call for reforms to the tax code and entitlement programs, including the implementation of personal "ownership" of retirement security and health care decisions, according to a copy of a document obtained by Roll Call. Members of the caucus also will support expansion of intelligence and other national defense programs, as well as an aggressive border security approach to immigration.
While all of the members of the group would likely fall under the broad rubric of "social conservatives," the principles steer clear of issues like abortion or gay marriage. According to those involved in the effort, members of Reagan21, according to one, have decided that while those issues are important to them, they have decided to "focus on the fiscal policy issues that I think really killed us last year."
Republicans privately also applauded the decision to stay with traditional fiscal issues rather than expand the group's focus into social topics. One source noted that while most base Republican voters are fierce social conservatives, many independent voters and disaffected Democrats - who agree with the GOP on fiscal issues and ethics - are turned off by the party's heavy tilt toward its social wing.
According to GOP aides, the group has operated under strict confidentiality rules as it has hashed out how it will operate and what its mission should be - so much so that staff continue to have only a sketchy idea of what their bosses are envisioning. Additionally, the members of the group have agreed to not tip their hand to either Boehner or McConnell before today's news conference, although they have begun reaching out to like-minded Members in the House and Senate to join the group.
The formation of the caucus is the latest in a series of breaks between conservatives, particularly in the Senate, and the party's traditional power centers this year. DeMint and Coburn have openly and repeatedly attacked "Old Bulls" in the party like Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) for their use of earmarks. Additionally, conservatives openly broke with their leaders this spring over the immigration bill.
The Reagan21 member cautioned that the caucus's critique of current GOP positions should not be seen as members "tak[ing] a swipe at anybody" in leadership positions. "They've got a tough job and it's hard to get your arms around the whole party" in a way that could facilitate reform, the lawmaker explained, adding that Reagan21 participants see themselves as "the conscience of the Republican Party here" in Washington.
But reform will be key if Republicans are to avoid further electoral loses next year, this member said.
"Unless the Republicans get together and define themselves we're going to get caught in fog. ... I don't want to be Democrat-lite," the lawmaker said, adding that the group hopes to attract Members who have long been fiscal conservatives as well as new recruits. Reagan21 hopes "that a lot of these Republicans who like to think they can have it both ways - go home and talk like conservatives but come here and vote for whatever they want - will be forced to come to our side. We can't continue to allow a few people in our party continue to pervert what we are about."
admin
02-03 02:19 PM
Today, I heard back from a senator and a congressman from New Jersey regarding the webfaxes that I had sent them. Here are a few things that I learnt
The associate in the Senator's office was not aware of this issue and the one in the congressman was only partially aware of it. If this is the situation of the associates who look after immigration with the lawmakers in NJ, where there are thousands of EB-GC aspirants, the situation might much worse in other states.
The associates in the lawmaker's office do take the effort to read through the faxes, thus making it effective to bring our issues to their attention.
Our WebFax application is working fine. Previously I never got replies to my web faxes. What might have helped is the fact that the web fax did have my complete contact information. This makes it more trustworthy in their eyes.
So I request all of you to send out WebFaxes to your lawmakers. It is free for you and takes only a couple of minutes. Once you have sent it, urge your friends also to do the same.
Stand up and be heard.
The associate in the Senator's office was not aware of this issue and the one in the congressman was only partially aware of it. If this is the situation of the associates who look after immigration with the lawmakers in NJ, where there are thousands of EB-GC aspirants, the situation might much worse in other states.
The associates in the lawmaker's office do take the effort to read through the faxes, thus making it effective to bring our issues to their attention.
Our WebFax application is working fine. Previously I never got replies to my web faxes. What might have helped is the fact that the web fax did have my complete contact information. This makes it more trustworthy in their eyes.
So I request all of you to send out WebFaxes to your lawmakers. It is free for you and takes only a couple of minutes. Once you have sent it, urge your friends also to do the same.
Stand up and be heard.
more...
cal_dood
07-18 03:19 PM
http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/18over.html
HI all,
I'm very new here and I just got my H1B stamped to my passport. I'll be working in Tacoma WA. I wonder waht are the steps to issue a driving license in WA state. I have driving in my country for more than 10 years.
Best regards all,
HI all,
I'm very new here and I just got my H1B stamped to my passport. I'll be working in Tacoma WA. I wonder waht are the steps to issue a driving license in WA state. I have driving in my country for more than 10 years.
Best regards all,
2010 Black Swan International TV
smuggymba
09-18 12:48 PM
who will take care of the elderly parents in India? Since you're US citizen, u can apply GC for ur parents also. It's tough to leave ur old parents in India and just worry about a good lifestyle for the brother. None of my business but just a thought.
more...
rajenk
09-11 02:20 PM
They don't verify anything. They ask you to fill in a form I don't remember the form number. I remember they were asking your full name, SSN, Address in US, Country of citizenship, place of birth, your father's and mother's first name.
hair these Black Swan posters.
copsmart
06-07 10:17 PM
Here are my details.....
Paper filed: 05-19-2010
Received date: 05-20-2010
Notice date:06-01-2010
No updates yet.
Paper filed: 05-19-2010
Received date: 05-20-2010
Notice date:06-01-2010
No updates yet.
more...
Blog Feeds
12-07 09:00 AM
I'm going to guess that the same folks in the Tea Party screaming about the deficit will somehow find this breaking news to be irrelevant. Of course, they also think the sky's the limit when it comes to spending on immigration enforcement. So much for being consistent. I'm in France until Sunday and blogging from my iPad. I'm having a little trouble with links so please cut and paste this link in your web browser to read te CBO report - http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11991.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/cbo-dream-act-would-cut-deficit-by-3-billionyear.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/cbo-dream-act-would-cut-deficit-by-3-billionyear.html)
hot Black+swan+poster+film
actaccord
01-17 12:43 PM
comes up in next two years (or till unemployment goes down) will not be +ve for immigration community. Now immigration topic is of political score point not like before where there is reasonable debate was happening.
more...
house movie poster, lack swan
sanz
06-29 03:15 PM
my company also got acquired recently and i had gone for stamping. Mine was for renewal. they just looked at the 797 and gave the stamping. i had written the name of the old company in the ds-160 as the h1 document was in their name
tattoo quot;Black Swanquot; landed just a
cityfisher
07-26 09:43 AM
I read some posts on this forum that some people have successfully changed their EB category. Please help answer my question.THANKs.
more...
pictures BLACK SWAN Poster double sided
franklin
04-14 01:53 AM
16th congressional district - volunteers needed
Calling for Nor Cal volunteers in the 16th congressional district.
http://www.house.gov/lofgren/district_16map.pdf
We were given advice to meet with Hon. Zoe Lofgren the congresswoman for this district. As we as being an immigration attorney, she is Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
We need to visit her!
Calling for Nor Cal volunteers in the 16th congressional district.
http://www.house.gov/lofgren/district_16map.pdf
We were given advice to meet with Hon. Zoe Lofgren the congresswoman for this district. As we as being an immigration attorney, she is Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
We need to visit her!
dresses Poster Nachschub in die
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.
more...
makeup Black Swan poster.
logiclife
03-23 11:24 PM
If you are working/Living in Tennessee please urgenly email with you name and phone number to
jay@immigrationvoice.org
aman@immigrationvoice.org
rajesh@immigrationvoice.org
This is VERY VERY IMPORTANT and please do it promptly. We need your help RIGHT AWAY as we have a good chance at making a difference in the next few days.
Please do not hesitate and come forward. You can also call us at 281-576-7185.
--Jay.
jay@immigrationvoice.org
aman@immigrationvoice.org
rajesh@immigrationvoice.org
This is VERY VERY IMPORTANT and please do it promptly. We need your help RIGHT AWAY as we have a good chance at making a difference in the next few days.
Please do not hesitate and come forward. You can also call us at 281-576-7185.
--Jay.
girlfriend The wide release of Black Swan
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
hairstyles Black Swan Lego Poster 2011
Blog Feeds
07-15 03:01 PM
H-1B visas are a relatively swift path to employment for foreigners with bachelor's degrees and U.S. employers to sponsor them. Each year, the U.S. government makes 65,000 H-1B visas available to qualified individuals on a first-come basis. The cap has been reached every year for the last several years, and for fiscal year 2008, it was reached on the first day of filing. As of July 10, 2009, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had received 44,900 H-1B cap-subject petitions that have been counted towards the 65,000 H-1B cap. USCIS continues to accept cap-subject petitions.
If you would like more information regarding the H-1B visa cap, please call Kraft & Associates at 214-999-9999.
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/MRjUMasCbZw/)
If you would like more information regarding the H-1B visa cap, please call Kraft & Associates at 214-999-9999.
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/MRjUMasCbZw/)
Hinglish
03-06 04:44 PM
I am applying for new H1b in April. Also I have 485 applied under EB2 with I-140 approved.
1. Can anyone tell me what all information about my green card status I need to share with prospective employer attorney to make sure they provide it in H1b application...???
2. What's alien number and where can I find it...???
Thanks in advance...
1) Tell them you are an alien
2) give them your license plate number from the back of your UFO
1. Can anyone tell me what all information about my green card status I need to share with prospective employer attorney to make sure they provide it in H1b application...???
2. What's alien number and where can I find it...???
Thanks in advance...
1) Tell them you are an alien
2) give them your license plate number from the back of your UFO
gc28262
04-16 11:35 AM
Yes, you have to file a change of address form.
Also make sure your employer files an LCA for the new location.
Change of Address Regulation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1305.html)
Online change of address link (https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa)
Also make sure your employer files an LCA for the new location.
Change of Address Regulation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1305.html)
Online change of address link (https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa)
No comments:
Post a Comment