Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
wallpaper Liv Tyler#39;s hairstyle
fatjoe
09-06 01:45 PM
In the same boat. Looks like July 17th & around are not cleared yet. Mine filed on July 18th
morchu
06-11 09:18 AM
Yes.
My I-485 is pending with EB3 Feb 2006 priority date. Invoked AC21 and currently working for a different employer. Have Masters degree and 9+ years of experience.
Is there a way to re-apply for Green Card under EB2 category thru a 3rd employer and retain the old EB3 priority date?
Thanks in advance.
My I-485 is pending with EB3 Feb 2006 priority date. Invoked AC21 and currently working for a different employer. Have Masters degree and 9+ years of experience.
Is there a way to re-apply for Green Card under EB2 category thru a 3rd employer and retain the old EB3 priority date?
Thanks in advance.
2011 70s poof hairstyle how | where
claudia255
07-27 08:53 PM
We will probably hear more about this soon: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/specter-has-new-immigration-package-2007-07-27.html
more...
Macaca
05-25 08:10 PM
Making History, Reluctantly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402069.html) In a Hill Anomaly, Pelosi Shepherds Iraq Bill She Opposes, By Jonathan Weisman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jonathan+weisman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 25, 2007
In public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had done nothing to suppress her frustration as she assented to funding the Iraq war without a deadline to end it. But behind closed doors Wednesday night, she was all business.
With its members gathered in her office, she told the House's "Progressive Caucus" that she would vote against the war funding bill, but that she also had no choice but to facilitate its passage. Funds were running out for the troops, and she had promised to protect them. The Memorial Day break loomed, and without the money President Bush would have a week to hammer her party for taking a vacation while the Pentagon scrambled to keep its soldiers fed.
Was she agonized over the situation? Sure, said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who attended the meeting. But "we all feel that way," he added. "I feel that way, too. Are we going to just walk away now, or are we going to continue this process, to keep the pressure on?"
Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party.
Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature.
Over his objections and the opposition of most Republicans, Hastert did allow passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, but only because a petition drive was about to force the bill to the floor. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law.
"We don't relish bringing a package to the floor that we're not going to vote for," Obey conceded before last night's vote.
Pelosi's agonized decision put her in the company of Foley, who in 1991 brought to the floor the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War and then voted against it, and Thomas Brackett Reed, a speaker in the 1890s who voted against the annexation of Hawaii, and then against the Spanish-American War, but allowed both to go forward.
"To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it," Hastert said.
But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions.
Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about. A parliamentary vote to bring the Iraq funding legislation to the floor included language demanding a showdown vote in September over further funding. A second vote allowed Democrats to vote in favor of funds for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, agricultural drought relief and children's health insurance. Finally, the House got around to funding the war.
Republicans cried foul over what they saw as an abuse of the legislative system, but Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats.
"It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), who is personally close to Pelosi. "You can't just walk away."
In public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had done nothing to suppress her frustration as she assented to funding the Iraq war without a deadline to end it. But behind closed doors Wednesday night, she was all business.
With its members gathered in her office, she told the House's "Progressive Caucus" that she would vote against the war funding bill, but that she also had no choice but to facilitate its passage. Funds were running out for the troops, and she had promised to protect them. The Memorial Day break loomed, and without the money President Bush would have a week to hammer her party for taking a vacation while the Pentagon scrambled to keep its soldiers fed.
Was she agonized over the situation? Sure, said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who attended the meeting. But "we all feel that way," he added. "I feel that way, too. Are we going to just walk away now, or are we going to continue this process, to keep the pressure on?"
Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party.
Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature.
Over his objections and the opposition of most Republicans, Hastert did allow passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, but only because a petition drive was about to force the bill to the floor. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law.
"We don't relish bringing a package to the floor that we're not going to vote for," Obey conceded before last night's vote.
Pelosi's agonized decision put her in the company of Foley, who in 1991 brought to the floor the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War and then voted against it, and Thomas Brackett Reed, a speaker in the 1890s who voted against the annexation of Hawaii, and then against the Spanish-American War, but allowed both to go forward.
"To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it," Hastert said.
But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions.
Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about. A parliamentary vote to bring the Iraq funding legislation to the floor included language demanding a showdown vote in September over further funding. A second vote allowed Democrats to vote in favor of funds for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, agricultural drought relief and children's health insurance. Finally, the House got around to funding the war.
Republicans cried foul over what they saw as an abuse of the legislative system, but Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats.
"It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), who is personally close to Pelosi. "You can't just walk away."
imh1b
05-19 09:41 AM
I like to read this Immigrant of the day post. It makes me feel proud of being an immigrant.
more...
gsc999
04-30 09:22 PM
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119913.html
Thanks for posting. Last 10 seconds of the Part III were shocking.
Warning: May be inappropriate for female members :o
Thanks for posting. Last 10 seconds of the Part III were shocking.
Warning: May be inappropriate for female members :o
2010 to do the poof hairstyle.
ankitab617
07-27 03:57 AM
I have applied for my I-485 ( PD: jan 2007- EB2, India).
I want to leave MS and join a different company now ...Question is do you know if MS withdraws I-140 ????
does anybody know what is the official policy ?? Please respond to me with a PM if you think it is inappropriate to discuss publicly...
Thanks
-A
I want to leave MS and join a different company now ...Question is do you know if MS withdraws I-140 ????
does anybody know what is the official policy ?? Please respond to me with a PM if you think it is inappropriate to discuss publicly...
Thanks
-A
more...
Blog Feeds
11-30 03:21 AM
From UPI: U.S. Latinos, feeling neglected by both parties, are discussing forming an independent "Tequila Party" force, leaders say. "I don't know if it's going to happen, but there's talk," Fernando Romero, president of Nevada's Hispanics in Politics, told the Las Vegas Sun. "There's discussion about empowerment of the Latino vote." The idea, being debated in Nevada and around the country, stems from frustration over the Democrats' inaction on immigration reform and feelings of being taken for granted. While I wouldn't put too much credence in this happening any time soon, it does raise the point that Latinos expect more...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/warning-to-dems-latinos-could-form-new-political-party.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/warning-to-dems-latinos-could-form-new-political-party.html)
hair Easy Updo Hairstyle Member
bubli167
03-17 08:49 AM
HI..
My grand father and grand mother are trying to apply for visitor visa.. my grand father is a retired govt employee and grand mom is home maker.. my grandfather is coming on their own and we are not sponsoring them..he will be able to submit tax returns as he runs small business and owns 1 apartment and few lands my questions are:
1.what are the documents should he take for visa ?
2.how much of bank balance? (they say 6 months of bank statements is necessary)
3.cant he just say he's retired and take the asset evaluation and bank statements alone?
please help ...
My grand father and grand mother are trying to apply for visitor visa.. my grand father is a retired govt employee and grand mom is home maker.. my grandfather is coming on their own and we are not sponsoring them..he will be able to submit tax returns as he runs small business and owns 1 apartment and few lands my questions are:
1.what are the documents should he take for visa ?
2.how much of bank balance? (they say 6 months of bank statements is necessary)
3.cant he just say he's retired and take the asset evaluation and bank statements alone?
please help ...
more...
eb3_nepa
09-14 10:07 PM
Hi,
I see a LOT of the same questions being posted over and over again. (eg. H1b Transfer, Eb3 to Eb2 etc). I also see that the Questions answered by the lawyer are quite hard to access and the info about the next call etc is also quite hard to get to.
How about we bring the 2 worlds together. We have a Menu Item on the Left saying either "FAQ's about immigration" or "Q/A from lawyers" etc. and somewhere on the homepage plus in the forums section we put some text saying "Before posting please check out the answers from lawyers" and put a link to the same.
Along with that (if possible), we also put all the questions and how many have been answered and which ones are going to be answered.
I see a LOT of the same questions being posted over and over again. (eg. H1b Transfer, Eb3 to Eb2 etc). I also see that the Questions answered by the lawyer are quite hard to access and the info about the next call etc is also quite hard to get to.
How about we bring the 2 worlds together. We have a Menu Item on the Left saying either "FAQ's about immigration" or "Q/A from lawyers" etc. and somewhere on the homepage plus in the forums section we put some text saying "Before posting please check out the answers from lawyers" and put a link to the same.
Along with that (if possible), we also put all the questions and how many have been answered and which ones are going to be answered.
hot conrad quot;poofquot;
pa_arora
09-24 09:17 PM
Not sure if this is posted before..
Check the PDF file on the right of the link for the numbers
USCIS - Questions & Answers: Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Inventory (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb7e3210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=ae853ad15c673210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
Check the PDF file on the right of the link for the numbers
USCIS - Questions & Answers: Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Inventory (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb7e3210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=ae853ad15c673210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
more...
house celebrity wedding hairstyle
andycool
10-25 01:13 PM
Hello Attorney,
I filed AP for me and my Dependent , Unfortunately USCIS just picked the application on the top of packet ( My Application ) and i got the receipt No , I dont know what happened to my Spouces Application her check is not cashed and no receipt no , I suppose her applicaiton is was just placed with my applicaiton and was considered as just one application .
Now what are my options , can i go ahead and file one more application , i know its literally impossible for me to call uscis and Track my wife's application , can i go and file a new application for my Spouse . Please advice.
Thanks
I filed AP for me and my Dependent , Unfortunately USCIS just picked the application on the top of packet ( My Application ) and i got the receipt No , I dont know what happened to my Spouces Application her check is not cashed and no receipt no , I suppose her applicaiton is was just placed with my applicaiton and was considered as just one application .
Now what are my options , can i go ahead and file one more application , i know its literally impossible for me to call uscis and Track my wife's application , can i go and file a new application for my Spouse . Please advice.
Thanks
tattoo Front Poof Hairstyle - VidoEmo - Emotional Video Unity
immigrantinwaiting
11-23 05:29 PM
Here is a question for one of my friend
He is a July 07 filer and has I 485 pending for more than 180 days, has EAD and AP.
All through the years he has been on H1. however there is a gap of 40 days between change of employer on H1. (The H1 is approved after this gap of 40days) Is he in the status during this gap of 40 days because he has pending 485 and has valid EAD/AP?
He is a July 07 filer and has I 485 pending for more than 180 days, has EAD and AP.
All through the years he has been on H1. however there is a gap of 40 days between change of employer on H1. (The H1 is approved after this gap of 40days) Is he in the status during this gap of 40 days because he has pending 485 and has valid EAD/AP?
more...
pictures finding a hairstyle that
ivgclive
09-21 12:22 PM
D
dresses go “poof; pouf hairstyles.
tntgirl
02-24 09:35 PM
My sister filed 1-130 for me in 1997. I am currently living in the US on an H1B visa and the I-130 has been approved. As requested by the NVC, my sister submitted her affidavit of support (I-864) and paid the immigrant visa fee. However, I recently found out that I should have filed I-485 instead. I was advised that I cannot file the DS-230 because I live in the US. Is this true? Which could/should I do, DS-230 or I-485? Is there a way to get the immigrant visa fee returned?
I will appreciate any advice.
I will appreciate any advice.
more...
makeup short hair styles for oval
vallabhu
08-07 09:33 AM
I know this is dumb question to ask as I should not lie on the application and hide my previous application details but the question really is what all documents should I furnish from my existing application.
girlfriend half-down hairstyle by
ita
04-22 04:20 PM
for address change questions...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=188983&posted=1#post188983
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=188983&posted=1#post188983
hairstyles With an attractive poof on the
snehal
11-12 07:15 PM
Multiple H1 Stamping
Hi guys
I have a query; I had applied for H1 visa (2007 � 2008) from 2 places
One from my current working company and another from consultancy firm in US. I got through the lottery from both the places. I have done my stamping for the visa from consulting firm.
Now my question is will I be allowed to go for stamping again :rolleyes:. What are my options now if I want my visa stamped from my current working company :confused:.
Hi guys
I have a query; I had applied for H1 visa (2007 � 2008) from 2 places
One from my current working company and another from consultancy firm in US. I got through the lottery from both the places. I have done my stamping for the visa from consulting firm.
Now my question is will I be allowed to go for stamping again :rolleyes:. What are my options now if I want my visa stamped from my current working company :confused:.
Temp_worker
08-21 07:41 PM
Friends, Please let me know your input-
Here is my backgound -
1.Current status working on H1B 8th year extension for company A
2.Labor and I-140 is approved � EB3 PD 04/2006 - Company A
3.485 pending applied in August 2007 (> 180 days) - Company A
4.EAD & AP approved - Company A
5.Wife on H4 Status not filed for her 485 as she was not here.
I want do H1b transfer & work for another company B -(Job code & job duties are little different)
I don't want to use AC21 - just continue with Company B on H1 B transfer.
I am doing H1b transfer nothing else once dates are current will add my wife.
Am I doing something wrong or screwing up my GC process?
Please advise
Here is my backgound -
1.Current status working on H1B 8th year extension for company A
2.Labor and I-140 is approved � EB3 PD 04/2006 - Company A
3.485 pending applied in August 2007 (> 180 days) - Company A
4.EAD & AP approved - Company A
5.Wife on H4 Status not filed for her 485 as she was not here.
I want do H1b transfer & work for another company B -(Job code & job duties are little different)
I don't want to use AC21 - just continue with Company B on H1 B transfer.
I am doing H1b transfer nothing else once dates are current will add my wife.
Am I doing something wrong or screwing up my GC process?
Please advise
Vish
05-01 02:51 AM
Does anyone know if there are any support group/s out there to help plan moving back to india, for good?
The logistics and closing all the open look in US is a daunting task and it would be great if there are any support groups out there.
The logistics and closing all the open look in US is a daunting task and it would be great if there are any support groups out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment