paragpujara
11-27 09:37 AM
Number to call
Call 1-800-375-5283
Press 1
Press 2
Press 2
Press 6
Press 2
press 2
press 1
If you follow above sequence then yr call will be transfered to Customer Service. Hope this helps.
Call 1-800-375-5283
Press 1
Press 2
Press 2
Press 6
Press 2
press 2
press 1
If you follow above sequence then yr call will be transfered to Customer Service. Hope this helps.
wallpaper makeup dianna agron hot video.
Blog Feeds
06-03 02:10 PM
Despite regular statements by pundits that lawmakers can't move an immigration reform bill in the middle of a recession, several recent polls show the public not only is ready, but that support for reform has actually been INCREASING. I've blogged on recent ABC/Washington Post and CBS/NY Times polls and yesterday I listened in on a media conference call hosted by the pro-immigration advocacy group America's Voice that featured Pete Brodnitz of the firm Benenson Strategy Group and Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners who discussed their recent public opinion research. Benenson's firm has done recent polling on the subject and...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/poll-80-of-americans-ready-for-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/poll-80-of-americans-ready-for-immigration-reform.html)
fatjoe
01-23 03:41 PM
I am working for company A on H1 which is valid until November 2010. I would like to work for Company B on EAD, since company B would not do H1
To be on the safer side, I would to like have another H1 from company C, so that if anything happens with I-485, I can join company C on the H1.
Is this possible? Do I have to travel out of country in order to work for company C on H1?
In some of the forums I saw that, we can go to H1 from EAD as long as our H1B is unexpired. Pls let me know what you know about this.
Thanks
To be on the safer side, I would to like have another H1 from company C, so that if anything happens with I-485, I can join company C on the H1.
Is this possible? Do I have to travel out of country in order to work for company C on H1?
In some of the forums I saw that, we can go to H1 from EAD as long as our H1B is unexpired. Pls let me know what you know about this.
Thanks
2011 lovely dress Dianna Agron
anilsal
03-03 03:01 AM
Work at IL State Chapter is going on. Mainly visit the lawmaker(s) via their staff / case workers on immigration.
For anyone interested in the IL State Chapter, you will have to PM me.
For anyone interested in the IL State Chapter, you will have to PM me.
more...
grinch
04-16 11:54 AM
Kaneda does look blurry.
Blog Feeds
07-29 06:20 PM
Robert Creamer has an interesting analysis of how the ruling in Arizona could affect the Democrats' prospects in November. Many pundits are assuming that Republicans benefit. But Creamer makes a point I've said here many times. The only voters who switch their votes on the immigration issue are Hispanics. Anti-immigrants NEVER vote for the Democrats anyway. They almost always have a host of issues that they care about and in most cases the GOP is the better fit for those voters. So Democrats who try and pander to the Tea Party types are wasting their time.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/why-the-arizona-ruling-is-good-for-democrats.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/why-the-arizona-ruling-is-good-for-democrats.html)
more...
mugyaded
11-10 04:46 AM
only photoshop
2010 makeup 2011 Dianna Agron Curly
martinvisalaw
07-02 06:51 PM
Whatever you call it, you are really always applying for a new EAD. There is no such thing as renewing an existing EAD. The I-765 form that you complete will ask about any prior EADs that you had. If you do not have details, please put as close to the facts as possible. If you still have a CIS receipt number, definitely include that so CIS can look up the details.
more...
gc28262
01-22 03:54 PM
Law firm presenting the case does make a difference in H1B applications.
hair dianna agron fat. dianna agron
milind70
08-30 11:41 AM
My H1B Visa stamp expires in Jan 08 but H1B Status expires Sept 08. Is it too early to get a new H1B stamp 4 months before expiration of the H1B stamp I currently have.
I am planning to go to Ottawa now for a stamp that expires in Sept 08.
Thanks for your help.
Visa stamp doesnt define your legal status or your stay period ,it is the latest I 94 . Visa stamp is only required when u travel outside the country.
I am planning to go to Ottawa now for a stamp that expires in Sept 08.
Thanks for your help.
Visa stamp doesnt define your legal status or your stay period ,it is the latest I 94 . Visa stamp is only required when u travel outside the country.
more...
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
hot dianna agron glee hairstyles. Hairstyle of Dianna Agron
arnab221
11-05 09:57 AM
Folks ,
I was just pondering on why Madame Pelosi has not woken up from her slumber and acted on the letters that she is recieving . I can count 10 letters from my relatively short memory . Wonder when she will ACT and stop recieving and filing letters . JUST 54 days are left in 2007 . :eek:
I was just pondering on why Madame Pelosi has not woken up from her slumber and acted on the letters that she is recieving . I can count 10 letters from my relatively short memory . Wonder when she will ACT and stop recieving and filing letters . JUST 54 days are left in 2007 . :eek:
more...
house dianna agron gq glee. dianna
h_shaik
10-17 12:04 PM
Hi,
I have two H1bs. I was working on first H1 till 02/2007 , i moved to second H1from 03/2007 . I am planning to go back to my first H1b which is valid till 03/2008.
Is moving back and forth on these two valid H1 is possible? If so what steps i need to follow.
Help is appritiated.
Regards.
I have two H1bs. I was working on first H1 till 02/2007 , i moved to second H1from 03/2007 . I am planning to go back to my first H1b which is valid till 03/2008.
Is moving back and forth on these two valid H1 is possible? If so what steps i need to follow.
Help is appritiated.
Regards.
tattoo dianna agron glee hairstyles.
another one
11-27 10:48 AM
A. Global Talent Magnet
B. Magnet or Stagnate??
B. Magnet or Stagnate??
more...
pictures Dianna Agron 399x600
f1USvisaholder
04-03 09:10 PM
Hi,
I'm on F1 visa and recently got married in US..I would like to have my lastname changed in my INDIAN passport.. I will apply for a new INDIAN passport through indian embassy in US..I realized that i will get a new passport with new last name...But my question is what happens to the F1 visa on the old passport and I-94, will they be still valid?...How does it work..what do i need to get them moved over to the new passport...
I know i will have to let my school know about the name change so that they can get me a new I-20 by updating the SEVIS...I've already done that and they are OK with it...
Appreciate your response..
Thanks
I'm on F1 visa and recently got married in US..I would like to have my lastname changed in my INDIAN passport.. I will apply for a new INDIAN passport through indian embassy in US..I realized that i will get a new passport with new last name...But my question is what happens to the F1 visa on the old passport and I-94, will they be still valid?...How does it work..what do i need to get them moved over to the new passport...
I know i will have to let my school know about the name change so that they can get me a new I-20 by updating the SEVIS...I've already done that and they are OK with it...
Appreciate your response..
Thanks
dresses tattoo Dianna Agron Photo
STAmisha
06-30 12:59 PM
Bumping
more...
makeup glee dianna agron tattoo.
rogerdepena
04-30 10:42 PM
very nice show. i didnt know minutemen are composed fo old folks.
girlfriend hot dianna agron gq tattoo.
DSP
07-19 04:35 AM
Hi,
I have an approved I-140 with my current employer. I have an offer from another employer that I am considering but the new employer will only transfer the H1B and not sponsor the GC.
Q1: Can I transfer my visa and start working for new employer and keep the GC process with the old employer if they agree to keep the offer open?
Q2: After visa transfer, if my PD becomes current, can I file I-485 with the old employer while working for the new employer?
I really appreciate any help.
Thanks
DSP
I have an approved I-140 with my current employer. I have an offer from another employer that I am considering but the new employer will only transfer the H1B and not sponsor the GC.
Q1: Can I transfer my visa and start working for new employer and keep the GC process with the old employer if they agree to keep the offer open?
Q2: After visa transfer, if my PD becomes current, can I file I-485 with the old employer while working for the new employer?
I really appreciate any help.
Thanks
DSP
hairstyles dianna agron hot wallpaper.
HybridIllusion
03-28 09:41 PM
if i have a 2d image is there anyway to have it made into 3d. and then export it out into something like flash to move it to my free will
immigration2007
06-14 02:51 PM
Hi,
Can anyone help me know of a process by which I can get my duplicate W2 form. The scenario is that I asked my employer to send me the W2 form and they say they did send it via post. But I did not receive it. Also my employer says they have not received it back. I need to file my taxes(Fortunately I had applied for extention) and don't have a W2 to attach with it. Can anybody help me with knowing the process
Thanks in advance.
Can anyone help me know of a process by which I can get my duplicate W2 form. The scenario is that I asked my employer to send me the W2 form and they say they did send it via post. But I did not receive it. Also my employer says they have not received it back. I need to file my taxes(Fortunately I had applied for extention) and don't have a W2 to attach with it. Can anybody help me with knowing the process
Thanks in advance.
rkp27
09-01 10:31 AM
Frinds
I need small help from you. I filed my EAD on july 17th and aug 2nd my green card is approved. I got mail from USCSIS that my application, fees and all supporting documents are returned due to either invalid fees or document is not signed which is not a case becauase i filed efile and paid by credit card and i sent them all supporting document. I guess they return because my GC is approved.
So can i claim fees paid my credit card back ? is there any body in same situation ? they mentioned in letter that fees will be back but i do not see that is case.
Appriciate if you help to understand that if they will give me money back or not.. i called customer services and they told me that i can not get it back but they were not sure.
Thank you.
I need small help from you. I filed my EAD on july 17th and aug 2nd my green card is approved. I got mail from USCSIS that my application, fees and all supporting documents are returned due to either invalid fees or document is not signed which is not a case becauase i filed efile and paid by credit card and i sent them all supporting document. I guess they return because my GC is approved.
So can i claim fees paid my credit card back ? is there any body in same situation ? they mentioned in letter that fees will be back but i do not see that is case.
Appriciate if you help to understand that if they will give me money back or not.. i called customer services and they told me that i can not get it back but they were not sure.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment