Hatianleo
10-16 03:37 PM
Hey everybody, My friend have a situation. He is from Haiti and he been in the USA since 1998 on a visitors visa but stayed. Graduated school, but couldn't do nothing else because of his papers, he lived with his sisters and they didn't work on it. Had a little situation in 2007 where he left the scene of an accident because he didn't have papers. They called it a felony, and now the (TPS) came around and he got denied because of that felony. He doesn't know where or what to do, don't have money for lawyers because he cant work. Anybody out there been there that knows what to do please feel free to do so. GOD bless
wallpaper wallpaper cute puppy picture, puppy pictures of cute puppies and dogs.
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
kirupa
03-03 12:45 AM
Added!
2011 stock photo : Cute puppies and
freddyCR
March 2nd, 2005, 08:38 PM
Not very sure about this one...what do you think?
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/medium/stray1-1_BW8x6L.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/medium/stray1-1_BW8x6L.jpg
more...
Blog Feeds
12-21 07:20 PM
Washington Post columnist Edward Schumacher-Matos compares the vote to the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Indian Removal Act, the Fugitive Slave Law and other acts of Congress that reflect hate-filled periods in American history. And just like in those days, today's antis will insist racism has nothing to do with it (even though it has everything to do with it).
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/schumacher-matos-dream-act-latest-in-long-history-of-shameful-acts-in-congress.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/schumacher-matos-dream-act-latest-in-long-history-of-shameful-acts-in-congress.html)
maverick_joe
01-08 12:58 PM
If the Given name and the surname on the passport are swapped does this need to be notified to USCIS?I am a July 2007 485 filer./\/
more...
WeShallOvercome
11-01 01:14 PM
I sent my EAD application on 10/24(Wednesday), reached NSC on 10/26(Friday), Notice date 10/29(Monday), Check cashed 10/30(Tuesday)..Already got I-485 receipts back in August.
So they are Current now.... But what about those July/Aug filers who are still waiting for their receipts? Very unfair to them. I could wait for 2 months to get my EAD receipt if they could first receipt all july august filers...
They are really unpredictable..
So they are Current now.... But what about those July/Aug filers who are still waiting for their receipts? Very unfair to them. I could wait for 2 months to get my EAD receipt if they could first receipt all july august filers...
They are really unpredictable..
2010 Cute little angry puppy dog
coronapup
07-27 07:01 PM
I140 is pending, Filed EB2 485 on Jul2nd, no receipt yet, and we don't know when it will come.
My wife's F1 is going to expire on Aug28. I was planning to file COS to H4 for her now. However, today I heard that filing AOS and COS at the same time will be a conflict and one case might get denied.
Should I still go ahead and file her COS now or wait some more time till we get the 485 receipt? The concern I have is that AOS is not a safe status since 140 is still pending now. However we don't want to mess up 485 just because of the COS application.
Can anyone give me some suggestion on this situation? Hope this is the right place to post the question.
My wife's F1 is going to expire on Aug28. I was planning to file COS to H4 for her now. However, today I heard that filing AOS and COS at the same time will be a conflict and one case might get denied.
Should I still go ahead and file her COS now or wait some more time till we get the 485 receipt? The concern I have is that AOS is not a safe status since 140 is still pending now. However we don't want to mess up 485 just because of the COS application.
Can anyone give me some suggestion on this situation? Hope this is the right place to post the question.
more...
makemygc
07-09 10:03 PM
Greeting Cards :p
Now that we have media attention with USCIS we should start letting Congress know of our plight too. Vice President who I think is the chair of the senate and Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker.:D
Adding whackiness to it. How about creating just one big huge monster greeting card with all the signatures from affecting people and put it in front of white house or some place we get the attention.
Now that we have media attention with USCIS we should start letting Congress know of our plight too. Vice President who I think is the chair of the senate and Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker.:D
Adding whackiness to it. How about creating just one big huge monster greeting card with all the signatures from affecting people and put it in front of white house or some place we get the attention.
hair makeup Cute Puppies amp; Dogs
sertasheep
03-16 11:24 AM
We need at least 10 more questions to be able to conduct the next conference call with Ms. Susan Henner. Please send us your questions to the email address listed in this thread: Click here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3532)
Please follow the procedure listed in the thread above so that your questions are crisp and lucid
Visit the Immigration Voice Blog (Click) (http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com) to listen to recordings of previous conference calls.
Please follow the procedure listed in the thread above so that your questions are crisp and lucid
Visit the Immigration Voice Blog (Click) (http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com) to listen to recordings of previous conference calls.
more...
blacktongue
11-10 08:35 AM
Can we call them as many times we want or call once every 3 months?
What if you are not satisfied with answer or worried about case progress?
How reach level 2 officer?
What if you are not satisfied with answer or worried about case progress?
How reach level 2 officer?
hot cute puppy dog sleeping
Rockey
03-21 12:43 PM
Hello Gurus,
Can we apply for H1 if our I-485 is pending while the current status is L1.
The reason I am asking is I-485 is itself a COS and if we apply H1 while on L1 it is again an COS petition from L1 to H1. So what happens to the I-485 application?:confused:
Will there be any impact or no impact at all?:mad:
Is there an option to apply without asking for COS when applying H1 with the current status as L1.:confused:
Please help with your views....
Can we apply for H1 if our I-485 is pending while the current status is L1.
The reason I am asking is I-485 is itself a COS and if we apply H1 while on L1 it is again an COS petition from L1 to H1. So what happens to the I-485 application?:confused:
Will there be any impact or no impact at all?:mad:
Is there an option to apply without asking for COS when applying H1 with the current status as L1.:confused:
Please help with your views....
more...
house Cute puppies - 1600*1200
CVine
01-07 10:05 AM
My girlfriend (from Russia) and I have been for about 3 years and living together for the last year and I've recently decided I want to propose this summer. She is currently here as an I-9 form (she's in grad school), but her student visa is expired. She recently got a job on campus and while she was going through the paperwork yesterday realized that her passport is going to expire next April (2012). So she is now planning to go back to Russia at the end of the year to renew her passport and apply for a new student visa. As I think we'd both like a longer engagement, and with a fiance visa you need to marry within 90 days of entering the country, we probably wouldn't want to apply for one at that time. However, I'm now wondering if being engaged will cause any complications for her when applying for her student visa. Any information or advise you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
tattoo Cute Puppy Dogs wallpapers
suryamnb
11-13 01:57 PM
Hi Friends,
I have a 4 yr Bachelors degree (B.Tech) in IT from India and also have MS in Computer & Network Engineering from UK.
Now my question is since most of the UK universities offer MS for 14-15 months, can I quailify for EB2 Categoy?
I have a 4 yr Bachelors degree (B.Tech) in IT from India and also have MS in Computer & Network Engineering from UK.
Now my question is since most of the UK universities offer MS for 14-15 months, can I quailify for EB2 Categoy?
more...
pictures of cute puppies and dogs.
newtoh1
01-21 02:10 PM
as per my knowledge"One should file a new LCA for an H1B petition" if work location changed from one state of US to other state.
Can you please tell me the process and how long will it take for this LCA approval?
After LCA approval, do I have to go for Visa stamping though we have valid visa?
How much does it costs for new LCA?
I am eagerly waiting for responses as I need it urgenetly.
Can you please tell me the process and how long will it take for this LCA approval?
After LCA approval, do I have to go for Visa stamping though we have valid visa?
How much does it costs for new LCA?
I am eagerly waiting for responses as I need it urgenetly.
dresses Cute Puppy Dogs Photos: May
Blog Feeds
05-04 01:30 PM
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama will become the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee under which the Immigration Subcommittee is included. Sessions has been one of the Senate's most vocal opponents of immigration reform. Sessions may only be in for the remainder of this Congress and then he is expected to pursue the ranking position on the Budget Committee. Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley has indicated his interest in pursuing the Judiciary job when the next Congress is sworn in.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/sessions-becomes-chief-republican-on-judiciary-committee.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/sessions-becomes-chief-republican-on-judiciary-committee.html)
more...
makeup cute+puppies+and+dogs
zerozerozeven
07-22 09:12 AM
^^^^^^^^^
girlfriend 2011 2010 Terrier puppy dogs
prince_waiting
01-20 03:14 AM
Sorry , please ignore the phrase 'fiscal cap', actually it should be annual H1B cap for that particular year.
hairstyles Dogs 2 Cute Puppies Free
kaarmaa
12-03 12:57 PM
Loo's only place is KKK
:eek::eek:
DUDE!! Delete this post. Thats a bad thing to say in a public forum.
:eek::eek:
DUDE!! Delete this post. Thats a bad thing to say in a public forum.
a_paradkar
10-31 01:46 PM
Friends
The questions is, if i have an approved I-140 from Company A and I switch over to Company B, then would i be able to file my 485 based on 140 related to Company A when my PD for Labor (company A) becomes current.
Thanks, please let me know
The questions is, if i have an approved I-140 from Company A and I switch over to Company B, then would i be able to file my 485 based on 140 related to Company A when my PD for Labor (company A) becomes current.
Thanks, please let me know
mabansal
10-04 01:45 PM
Hi,
I have filed my H1 (premium processing)on 26th Sep and till now I didn't receive my H1 receipt.
What could be the reasons and how i Can track about my case.
Can I track my case? is there some number where i can call discuss about my case why I didn't receive my receipt
My Lawyer called the USCIS and they are saying that they are not able to generate the receipt number?
Is somebody else faced the same issue? what could be done now?
I have filed my H1 (premium processing)on 26th Sep and till now I didn't receive my H1 receipt.
What could be the reasons and how i Can track about my case.
Can I track my case? is there some number where i can call discuss about my case why I didn't receive my receipt
My Lawyer called the USCIS and they are saying that they are not able to generate the receipt number?
Is somebody else faced the same issue? what could be done now?
No comments:
Post a Comment