nhfirefighter13
October 22nd, 2005, 08:00 PM
I like the second shot a lot. Nicely done.
I think the third shot needs to be closer. There's a little too much negative space around the arrangement. Just my 2 cents.
The first shot....I'm not too sure about that one. Technically, it looks fine but it's not holding my attention.
One thing I've noticed about studio product shots is that the most difficult part is finding the props to support the atmoshere of the photo...and then arranging them in a pleasant fashion. I've still got a lot to learn in that department.
I think the third shot needs to be closer. There's a little too much negative space around the arrangement. Just my 2 cents.
The first shot....I'm not too sure about that one. Technically, it looks fine but it's not holding my attention.
One thing I've noticed about studio product shots is that the most difficult part is finding the props to support the atmoshere of the photo...and then arranging them in a pleasant fashion. I've still got a lot to learn in that department.
wallpaper tattoo DiCaprio and Bar
martinvisalaw
07-13 05:26 PM
You shouldn't need an experience letter to apply for a H-1B visa, especially when the visa is for a different company. Eligibility for H-1B status doesn't depend on experience, it is education that is important.
raju123
05-16 12:53 PM
^^^^^ Bumping up
2011 ar refaeli leonardo dicaprio
drirshad
04-20 02:59 AM
http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Crystal ball gazing ........
Everyone wants us to put on our genie�s hat, gaze into our crystal ball, and try to predict what is going to happen in the next few months. So here it goes �
Congress is set to debate CIR in May. HLG thinks that there is a reasonable chance that one house of Congress passes CIR in the May/June time frame. And that the other house of Congress passes another CIR in June/July. With some negotiation, a compromise CIR bill could be on the president�s desk by the middle of the summer � say July.
In addition, we are also actively courting the bridge legislation that we�ve mentioned many times. HLG was privy to a meeting that took place just this week with a senior staffer in an important Senator�s office. The challenge here is to find the right must-pass legislation that can serve as a host.
Putting this all together HLG is slightly raising our latest estimate. We�re willing to print that there is a 60% chance that either CIR or Bridge legislation is passed and signed by the President by August 1. Whenever a bill is passed it will likley take an additional 30-60 days before the first visas are issued.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Crystal ball gazing ........
Everyone wants us to put on our genie�s hat, gaze into our crystal ball, and try to predict what is going to happen in the next few months. So here it goes �
Congress is set to debate CIR in May. HLG thinks that there is a reasonable chance that one house of Congress passes CIR in the May/June time frame. And that the other house of Congress passes another CIR in June/July. With some negotiation, a compromise CIR bill could be on the president�s desk by the middle of the summer � say July.
In addition, we are also actively courting the bridge legislation that we�ve mentioned many times. HLG was privy to a meeting that took place just this week with a senior staffer in an important Senator�s office. The challenge here is to find the right must-pass legislation that can serve as a host.
Putting this all together HLG is slightly raising our latest estimate. We�re willing to print that there is a 60% chance that either CIR or Bridge legislation is passed and signed by the President by August 1. Whenever a bill is passed it will likley take an additional 30-60 days before the first visas are issued.
more...
kumarc123
02-11 10:52 AM
Looks like the news is out on this in media.
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
Thank you for your input Pappu and we appreciate your diligence in the efforts to IV. However the question is: will this bill have the potential to move forward?
As I last recall, Zoe Lofgreen had tried a similar bill 3 years ago (2008) that would have eliminated visa backlog, but we all know that bill went no where.
At this point in time, does this bill have the potential to bring aboard the change we all are seeking for so long? I hope it does. As this journey has been quiet long and tedious.
Thank you
Immigration Voice has been aware of this and actively working on it for last 3 weeks. This had been also posted on the donor forums. Core members and several key IV volunteers/ donors already have been working on it and analyzing it. We also had been asked for our recommendations and had send our recommendations. We should see this bill introduced soon in a few days.
Thank you for your input Pappu and we appreciate your diligence in the efforts to IV. However the question is: will this bill have the potential to move forward?
As I last recall, Zoe Lofgreen had tried a similar bill 3 years ago (2008) that would have eliminated visa backlog, but we all know that bill went no where.
At this point in time, does this bill have the potential to bring aboard the change we all are seeking for so long? I hope it does. As this journey has been quiet long and tedious.
Thank you
srh1
10-28 03:43 PM
I went threw the forum but was not successful in finding . If possible can you please send the link.
Iam primarly intrested in knowing two things
1. How long can the consultant stay with existing employer after GC.
2. Does he have to be on payroll all the time till he is with The existing employer. I was on payroll for 2months and my project ended and will there be any problem if iam out of job for next 2 to 3months considering the market conditions.
Iam primarly intrested in knowing two things
1. How long can the consultant stay with existing employer after GC.
2. Does he have to be on payroll all the time till he is with The existing employer. I was on payroll for 2months and my project ended and will there be any problem if iam out of job for next 2 to 3months considering the market conditions.
more...
vishal
04-21 03:38 PM
hi friends,
even my PD is current. but my case is transferred from texas to vermont. though my PD is current my processing date is not current. what is the reason for transferring I- 485 case from one center to other.
any response is appreciated
even my PD is current. but my case is transferred from texas to vermont. though my PD is current my processing date is not current. what is the reason for transferring I- 485 case from one center to other.
any response is appreciated
2010 Bar Refaeli 2011 Agua Bendita
ryanjoe_99
05-29 09:47 AM
I have an emergency to go to India to take care of my sickly mom and I need to return back to work on July first. I am also trying to get emergency appointment. I couldnt. Could you please suggest the way I can get emergency appointment in any of the consulate.
more...
samsanju.corp
01-08 02:10 AM
Interview date 9th dec 2009
Submitted all documents 10th dec 2009 as mentioned below:-
1) Petitioner's Federal Income Tax returns
2) Petitioner's state unemployment wage reports for last 4 quarters.
3) Letter from end client in US on letterhead indicating your services are expected.
4) List of petitioner's employees at your job site including names, titles, salaries, and immigration status.
5) Copy of contract between petitioner and contracting company with detailed job itinerary.
Till date I together with my employer have written 6 emails but there is no response.
I personally visited mumbai Consulate information center but they did't ave me any answer.
Can anyone please tell me how long this whole process will take?
Is there any chance that such case goes into endless loop?
My house and all belongings are in U.S. and I am clueless as what to do
Submitted all documents 10th dec 2009 as mentioned below:-
1) Petitioner's Federal Income Tax returns
2) Petitioner's state unemployment wage reports for last 4 quarters.
3) Letter from end client in US on letterhead indicating your services are expected.
4) List of petitioner's employees at your job site including names, titles, salaries, and immigration status.
5) Copy of contract between petitioner and contracting company with detailed job itinerary.
Till date I together with my employer have written 6 emails but there is no response.
I personally visited mumbai Consulate information center but they did't ave me any answer.
Can anyone please tell me how long this whole process will take?
Is there any chance that such case goes into endless loop?
My house and all belongings are in U.S. and I am clueless as what to do
hair leonardo dicaprio and ar
slc_ut
05-28 07:31 PM
hi, thanks for info. But one more question. Yes, now and then a date in Oct' 2006 is showing up. But, it will take time to fill all the forms after i proceed. What are the chances that i will get that date when other people are competing in real-time? Please post a reply.
more...
TheCanadian
11-26 02:17 AM
If he was really smart he would've put up this inconspicuous yet artistically perfect image. Can you notice the subtle differences?
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6350/pickme.gif
Oh yeah, and I'm impressed you knew the term dimpled chad and managed to work it into a sentence somewhere.
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6350/pickme.gif
Oh yeah, and I'm impressed you knew the term dimpled chad and managed to work it into a sentence somewhere.
hot Bar Refaeli is showing off her
justareader
03-24 04:23 PM
Mark, That was awesome. Thanks for the effort
more...
house Leonardo DiCaprio and Bar
WeShallOvercome
11-08 01:48 PM
I beg to differ - while your general premise is accurate, I know of at least half a dozen people who filed 485 in June 2007 and got appproved over the last two weeks from TX Service Center - I dont think Aug 2006 is a hard date - like many other things with USCIS - they have an irrational passion for NOT applying the FIFO principle and we are expected to digest this irrational passion of theirs with dispassionate rationality.
you are right... Almost everyone who has dealt with USCIS even once in his/her life time, knows that USCIS is the most unpredictable agency in the world...I was just explaining what the dates are 'supposed to mean' according to the rules.
We all know how religiously USCIS follows its own rules.
you are right... Almost everyone who has dealt with USCIS even once in his/her life time, knows that USCIS is the most unpredictable agency in the world...I was just explaining what the dates are 'supposed to mean' according to the rules.
We all know how religiously USCIS follows its own rules.
tattoo ar refaeli leonardo dicaprio
pappu
01-30 05:46 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4480oomshiva
Do not post the same link on multiple threads. They will be deleted. Just post on the thread where it is useful. There is a news article thread where you should post your links.
Do not post the same link on multiple threads. They will be deleted. Just post on the thread where it is useful. There is a news article thread where you should post your links.
more...
pictures Leonardo DiCaprio and Bar
naresh515
09-24 01:22 PM
Hi All,
Is there anyone planning to get H1-B/any visa stamping in Matamoras, Mexico in the next couple months? (I'm from dallas)
Is there anyone who already went for stamping in matamoras recently....
Please share your thoughts...
I'm planning to get my H1-B renewal stamping next month...
Thanks for all your replies in advance!!!
Thanks,
Raghu.
Is there anyone planning to get H1-B/any visa stamping in Matamoras, Mexico in the next couple months? (I'm from dallas)
Is there anyone who already went for stamping in matamoras recently....
Please share your thoughts...
I'm planning to get my H1-B renewal stamping next month...
Thanks for all your replies in advance!!!
Thanks,
Raghu.
dresses Leonardo DiCaprio#39;s girlfriend
techskill
08-14 02:48 PM
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
$325 + $70 + $180 (EAD) + $170(AP)=$745
$325 + $70 + $180 (EAD) + $170(AP)=$745
more...
makeup Bar Refaeli 2011 Agua Bendita
Jaime
07-20 12:36 PM
From the website http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html we can see that there are only 140000 GCs are given for employment. Also as per the current prediction on the same page shows that there will be 750000 new applications will be added in to system because of this recent events. Now follwing are some facts what I can see from these details:
1. As only 140000 visas can be givens per year. USCIS OR DOS can not cross this limit.
2. There is also per country limit. (I don't know what is the exact % for per country - think 10 -20 %)
3. If you count 20 % then for India the figure per year is 28000.
4 Now imagine how many years it will take to cover up the number like 750000.
My analysis:
-Based on these details you can predict that there is going to be more than 10 years to clear this thing. (except some new law passes).
- Some may get GC after 10 years of filing A485.
- For atleast 10 years PD remains Unavailable.
What do you say on this?
I agree but, I am certain that a law will get passed at some point to give us relief, especially given all the noise that we have made (and which we should continue to make). I just cannot imagine that they wouldn't pass any relief. And if the latter is the case, it will be slavery and hell on earth, right here in the Land of the Free.
1. As only 140000 visas can be givens per year. USCIS OR DOS can not cross this limit.
2. There is also per country limit. (I don't know what is the exact % for per country - think 10 -20 %)
3. If you count 20 % then for India the figure per year is 28000.
4 Now imagine how many years it will take to cover up the number like 750000.
My analysis:
-Based on these details you can predict that there is going to be more than 10 years to clear this thing. (except some new law passes).
- Some may get GC after 10 years of filing A485.
- For atleast 10 years PD remains Unavailable.
What do you say on this?
I agree but, I am certain that a law will get passed at some point to give us relief, especially given all the noise that we have made (and which we should continue to make). I just cannot imagine that they wouldn't pass any relief. And if the latter is the case, it will be slavery and hell on earth, right here in the Land of the Free.
girlfriend DiCaprio and Bar Refaeli
pappu
08-22 04:57 PM
Pappu - Thanks for your reply. I completed my profile. I thot it was already complete. But filled out reamining fields.
I will call these people in Buffalo to find out if I can motivate them for rally..
Thank you
Thanks. Im glad I was able to help one more person come to the rally. If anyone has any issues they should contact the chapter leads or core team. We needed everyone in DC. Only exceptions are for who are unwell, pregnant or anti-immigrants on this forum. If you are neither of these three then see you in DC.
I will call these people in Buffalo to find out if I can motivate them for rally..
Thank you
Thanks. Im glad I was able to help one more person come to the rally. If anyone has any issues they should contact the chapter leads or core team. We needed everyone in DC. Only exceptions are for who are unwell, pregnant or anti-immigrants on this forum. If you are neither of these three then see you in DC.
hairstyles Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
anuh1
04-23 02:18 PM
If the client is ready to offer employment to you, client will take care of everthing. Why you worry about the law suite? My best guess is he is just threatening you because he will loose money on you. If you want you can scare him saying that you will put a case against him in USCIS by various reasons.
maxy
10-15 05:08 PM
may be not related ... but can someone explain what does this line mean ...
The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
does this mean that while invoking AC21, you have to tell your new employer to support your GC application ? hope not ! whole purpose of using EAD is to get rid of sponsorship non-sense....
anyone ?
The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
does this mean that while invoking AC21, you have to tell your new employer to support your GC application ? hope not ! whole purpose of using EAD is to get rid of sponsorship non-sense....
anyone ?
No comments:
Post a Comment