upuaut
08-29 02:03 AM
in order to get the animation to 'stick' you have to toggle that button that says "animate" on the top of the screen. The reason they do it that way is this. If you've already set up an animation, but then find that you need to change something in the basic structure of the item, you can turn off that toggle, edit the item and have it not effect the animation that you set up.
wallpaper can buy World of Warcraft
Blog Feeds
06-26 09:40 AM
The US Men's national soccer team had one of the greatest victories in its history today when it knocked off Spain, the #1 team in the world, at the Confederations Cup in South Africa. There are two immigrants on the roster for the US - Freddy Adu (who I honored after he competed with the US Olympic team last year). The other immigrant is Benny Feilhaber, a Brazilian-born American who moved to the US when he was six years old. When he is not playing on the US national team, he competes for AGF, a Danish team. Before that, he...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/immigrant-of-the-day-benny-feilhaber-member-of-our-national-soccer-team.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/immigrant-of-the-day-benny-feilhaber-member-of-our-national-soccer-team.html)
diptam
06-29 09:08 AM
1) If A# is not available so we need to populate it with I-94# ? I got
this weird idea from Point 10 of I-765 form where it says A# or I-94#
Of course in other places it just asks A# ( specially in I-131 form)
2) For I-131 there are lot of doubts - want to double check
a) Class of Admission - ?
b) A# is the very first Information sought !!
c) Date of Intended Departure and Expected length of Trip
d) For how many Trips you intend to use
3) In G-325A Bigraphic form also at the end - it again asks for
ALIEN REGISTRATION NUMBER - what is the that ??
Thanks,
Diptam
this weird idea from Point 10 of I-765 form where it says A# or I-94#
Of course in other places it just asks A# ( specially in I-131 form)
2) For I-131 there are lot of doubts - want to double check
a) Class of Admission - ?
b) A# is the very first Information sought !!
c) Date of Intended Departure and Expected length of Trip
d) For how many Trips you intend to use
3) In G-325A Bigraphic form also at the end - it again asks for
ALIEN REGISTRATION NUMBER - what is the that ??
Thanks,
Diptam
2011 WORLD OF WARCRAFT BLOOD ELF
tslee
04-22 11:57 AM
Dear all:
May I ask what I should do in the following situation?
I hold F1 visa and my new job starts on Sept 1. The int'l student office of my current university mistakenly set my OPT start date on May 6. My OPT has been approved and EAD card arrived.
That is, I will have 120-plus "unemployment" days accumulated by early August, which will then violate the "90-day unemployment rule" of OPT.
I am under tremendous pressure and really want to hear your opinions.
Many thanks in advance!
May I ask what I should do in the following situation?
I hold F1 visa and my new job starts on Sept 1. The int'l student office of my current university mistakenly set my OPT start date on May 6. My OPT has been approved and EAD card arrived.
That is, I will have 120-plus "unemployment" days accumulated by early August, which will then violate the "90-day unemployment rule" of OPT.
I am under tremendous pressure and really want to hear your opinions.
Many thanks in advance!
more...
akash_chopda
09-28 03:06 PM
Thank you!
My husband will go to india, so he will no longer on status, right ? if my H4 to F1 transfer is in progress, then can i stay in USA ?
My husband will go to india, so he will no longer on status, right ? if my H4 to F1 transfer is in progress, then can i stay in USA ?
ajaysri
08-07 01:31 PM
Any idea guys? any one had this experience?
more...
new2H1&GC
12-18 01:36 PM
Hello,
Got H1B this year via consultant,valid from Oct 1st to 2010. Applied for AOS(dervative) and got EAD, AP and I-485 receipt notice by Oct end. So I think my status is AOS now.
I haven't been put on project yet.
Planning to travel next month using AP.
On return I plan to find another job using EAD.
I wanted to know if and how using AP to re-enter effects H1B status.
Also will this "bench" period effect GC processing in anyway?
Thanks so much for your replies..
Also i would appreciate if gurus could suggest what documents to carry to show at POE, along with AP.
Thanks again!!!
Got H1B this year via consultant,valid from Oct 1st to 2010. Applied for AOS(dervative) and got EAD, AP and I-485 receipt notice by Oct end. So I think my status is AOS now.
I haven't been put on project yet.
Planning to travel next month using AP.
On return I plan to find another job using EAD.
I wanted to know if and how using AP to re-enter effects H1B status.
Also will this "bench" period effect GC processing in anyway?
Thanks so much for your replies..
Also i would appreciate if gurus could suggest what documents to carry to show at POE, along with AP.
Thanks again!!!
2010 warcraft+lood+elf+warlock
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
I listened intently to President Obama's State of the Union speech yesterday. The man is clearly a gifted orator. He stressed the need for cooperation between Democrats and Republicans on the big issues facing our country: the economy, climate change and health care reform, but where oh where was immigration? Finally, after the President was over one hour into his speech, I heard the word "immigration". One sentence. It came and went so fast that if you turned to your spouse and said, "Okay, here comes the President's plan for immigration reform", you would have missed the whole thing. Here...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/01/obamas-38-words-on-immigration.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/01/obamas-38-words-on-immigration.html)
more...
nomorehope
05-12 03:44 PM
Mine was filed in august 2007. It took 45 days for it to get audited and it has ever since been in process, that is close to 7 months after audit response.
hope for the best
hope for the best
hair warlockblood elfclassworld
ragool25
07-12 03:28 PM
Hi,
I am student on OPT extn working for an Non Profit Organisation ( non everified) , Since 2 months, I Know i should not work for non everfied company on OPT Extension, So i asked my company to do H1 asap, since workiing for non everified aslso considered as unemployed, But i am aware that in entire OPT we can unemployed for total 120 days.
My company is an Non Profit Organisation & dont have relatioship with any educational institues or research org.
Is my company eligible for H1 cap exempt, so that i can keep my start date as approval of H1? so i wont fall out of status since my H1 starts as the days of approval............or I need to wait until oct 1, 2010,
Even if i start at oct 1,2010, Will it affect my green card processing, since I worked for non everified around 6 months...........
Please provide your inputs.......
Thanks for reading my thread.
I am student on OPT extn working for an Non Profit Organisation ( non everified) , Since 2 months, I Know i should not work for non everfied company on OPT Extension, So i asked my company to do H1 asap, since workiing for non everified aslso considered as unemployed, But i am aware that in entire OPT we can unemployed for total 120 days.
My company is an Non Profit Organisation & dont have relatioship with any educational institues or research org.
Is my company eligible for H1 cap exempt, so that i can keep my start date as approval of H1? so i wont fall out of status since my H1 starts as the days of approval............or I need to wait until oct 1, 2010,
Even if i start at oct 1,2010, Will it affect my green card processing, since I worked for non everified around 6 months...........
Please provide your inputs.......
Thanks for reading my thread.
more...
rockyrock
08-02 07:00 PM
On I-765 item# 11 it asks us "Date". Which date are they referring to? Cause I had applied for OPT EAD twice (duration of 6 months each). Can someone pls let me know.....
hot 5 Blood Elf Warlock, world
Macaca
04-04 09:06 AM
The requirements depend on the International Student Office. They will give the best answer.
In my case, they required a letter from Deptt. I don't remember the contents of the letter.
In my case, they required a letter from Deptt. I don't remember the contents of the letter.
more...
house Level 10 Blood Elf Warlock
lelica32
06-25 02:14 PM
I applied for extension of stay to California Sercice Center. But if I move to Texas, will be my case transfered to VSC??
Lelica
Lelica
tattoo Blood Elf Mage - by Genzoman.
Juan-E
03-09 01:17 PM
:evil: if you are looking for a Digital graphic designer with experience in the photoshop, flash and freehand tools, i'm here. Please conctact me for prices without compromisses, or visit www.graphix-is.com (http://www.graphix-is.com) [SIZE=3][COLOR=darkred] :evil: or if you like contactme via email please click here (ventas@graphix-is.com)
more...
pictures In
vkarthik
11-05 04:12 PM
Not sure if I'm allowed to post such a question here, still trying ...
I have my H1 visa interview in Vancouver, Canada on the 21st of Nov. I'll be driving from Hillsboro (OR) to Vancouver on the 20th evening. I also have hotel reservation very close to the US embassy.
I was wondering if anyone who has an interview on the same day might be interested in sharing the ride and/or hotel expenses. Since the 22nd is a holiday, and I need to stay back for another day to get the visa, I have the hotel room booked from the 20th through the 23rd.
Please let me know if you are interested, we'll discuss further.
I have my H1 visa interview in Vancouver, Canada on the 21st of Nov. I'll be driving from Hillsboro (OR) to Vancouver on the 20th evening. I also have hotel reservation very close to the US embassy.
I was wondering if anyone who has an interview on the same day might be interested in sharing the ride and/or hotel expenses. Since the 22nd is a holiday, and I need to stay back for another day to get the visa, I have the hotel room booked from the 20th through the 23rd.
Please let me know if you are interested, we'll discuss further.
dresses Azkaban - WOW Blood Elf
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
more...
makeup World of Warcraft
eagerr2i
07-18 07:14 PM
Let the EAD expire, it makes more sense to use H1B when you enter the country. EAD and Advance Parole should be avoided and be used only as a last resort in extreme cases beacuse of the way immigration rules are carved.
girlfriend undead warlock, lood elf
smuggymba
02-28 12:54 AM
Hi All,
My I-94 expires in Oct, 2010 and my employer hasn't filed my GC. My 6 year stay expires on Feb, 2011 (don't know why I have oct, 2010 on my I-94)
My one extension has been filed. My question is:
Can I file another extension beyond oct, 2010 saying my 6 years on H1-B are not over (NO PERM or GC yet).
Thanks.
My I-94 expires in Oct, 2010 and my employer hasn't filed my GC. My 6 year stay expires on Feb, 2011 (don't know why I have oct, 2010 on my I-94)
My one extension has been filed. My question is:
Can I file another extension beyond oct, 2010 saying my 6 years on H1-B are not over (NO PERM or GC yet).
Thanks.
hairstyles World of Warcraft - Horde
sury
02-11 10:36 AM
Anyone has some information on my question..
pttuanzhang
06-02 07:49 PM
You're right, I really admire
rm7302
03-22 10:49 PM
Hi,
I am planning to apply for Alberta Nomination Program under NOC (Manufacturing and Industrial Engineers). Does anybody has any experience with this NOC. Also, I need to know how does this process work. I apply for ANP and when I need to move I apply for jobs and then I get work permit...right ? Then if I need to get a TN visa to come back to usa how do I do that. I have a house in chicago, so wondering if renting that out could be an option for me when I immigrate to alberta so that when I need I can come to chicago. I am in my 5th year of H1B and with the current scenario my present company is not going to start my GC (it stopped because of layoffs in the company).
I am planning to apply for Alberta Nomination Program under NOC (Manufacturing and Industrial Engineers). Does anybody has any experience with this NOC. Also, I need to know how does this process work. I apply for ANP and when I need to move I apply for jobs and then I get work permit...right ? Then if I need to get a TN visa to come back to usa how do I do that. I have a house in chicago, so wondering if renting that out could be an option for me when I immigrate to alberta so that when I need I can come to chicago. I am in my 5th year of H1B and with the current scenario my present company is not going to start my GC (it stopped because of layoffs in the company).
No comments:
Post a Comment