sab
01-08 01:29 PM
Terrible. From NPR
"Eventually, Red Cross and Palestine Red Crescent rescuers received permission to go into the shelled houses. Pierre Wettach, head of the ICRC for the region, called it a "shocking incident." "The ICRC/PRCS team found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses. They were too weak to stand up on their own."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99110616
"Eventually, Red Cross and Palestine Red Crescent rescuers received permission to go into the shelled houses. Pierre Wettach, head of the ICRC for the region, called it a "shocking incident." "The ICRC/PRCS team found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses. They were too weak to stand up on their own."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99110616
wallpaper Gold. First Page for Element
axp817
03-26 03:38 PM
If they continue to see in 140 filings by a company that there has been more 140's filed then people on payroll
That is precisely why smaller companies choose to revoke the 140 when an employee leaves them while the 485 is still pending.
It isn't always to "get back" at the employee.
That being said, UN, I would love to hear your thoughts on this situation,
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
That is precisely why smaller companies choose to revoke the 140 when an employee leaves them while the 485 is still pending.
It isn't always to "get back" at the employee.
That being said, UN, I would love to hear your thoughts on this situation,
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
2011 Gold Carpet
Macaca
12-23 11:04 AM
'D' in Democrats means Do-Nothing (http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_7792528?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com) BUSH, REPUBLICANS GET THEIR WAY ON MOST ISSUES DESPITE VOTERS' MANDATE TO CHANGE DIRECTION Mercury News Editorial, 12/23/2007
When the Democrats won control of Congress a year ago, they promised bold new leadership. Things would change, they said. They had a mandate.
But they didn't have the votes to stand up to veto threats by Bush and filibusters by Senate Republicans. They didn't have the bold new leadership, either. A year later, Congress is lamer than the lame-duck president.
On the Democrats' No. 1 issue, the war in Iraq, it's been a year of defeat and surrender. They were going to "bring the troops home." Instead, President Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The "surge," coupled with a new counter-insurgency strategy, has led to a sharp decline in military and civilian deaths. All attempts to link war funding to a withdrawal timetable fizzled. Giving up completely, Congress passed $70 billion in no-strings war funding before the Christmas recess.
Democratic leaders blame their impotence on Bush's obstinacy. Bush didn't compromise. He didn't have to.
Democrats talked about limiting the excesses of the Patriot Act, banning cruel CIA interrogation tactics and closing the Guant�namo Bay internment camp. Didn't happen.
Instead, Congress authorized warrantless surveillance for six months by passing the Protect America Act before the August recess. Democrats were forced to push discussion on making the surveillance rules permanent into January. Bush will likely win this one, too.
After months of wrangling, Congress approved an omnibus budget bill that gave Bush the spending levels he wanted.
Promising fiscal discipline, the Democrats vowed to pay for any tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere or spending cuts. That "pay as you go pledge" was put aside to pass a popular bill protecting 23 million middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers from paying $2,000 extra under the alternative minimum tax. Since the tax was originally designed to prevent the super-rich from using tax shelters, conservative Democrats tried to close tax shelters used by super-rich hedge-fund managers to cover the $50 million revenue loss. They lost.
Congress made baby steps toward fiscal discipline by trimming "earmarks" for pet projects by 25 percent from 2006, estimates Taxpayers for Common Sense. But legislators OK'd more than $15 billion for more than 11,000 pork-barrel projects.
President Bush didn't win them all: Social Security reform went nowhere, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind was postponed to 2008 and he couldn't rally enough Republicans to pass a complex and controversial immigration bill.
But this wasn't supposed to be his year. The triumphant Democrats made big promises a year ago, but delivered modest results. Democrats increased the minimum wage, enacted the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations into law and expanded student loans.
Most notable was the energy bill, which included the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks in 32 years.
However, Democrats dropped plans to repeal tax breaks for oil companies and require more use of alternative energy. Bush insisted. Congress caved.
On other issues, Congress acted and Bush vetoed. Congress expanded health insurance for children and approved federal funding for stem cell research, but couldn't overcome Bush's "no" vote.
Stymied repeatedly, Congress saw its approval ratings fall to record lows. When you're less popular than George W. Bush, you're pretty darned unpopular.
"I don't approve of Congress, because we haven't . . . been effective in ending the war in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco told reporters in response to the polls. "And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
2008 will be a year of partisan politics. No doubt Republicans will run against the do-nothing Congress. That could backfire. Democrats will tell voters that if they want Democratic policies - and most people tell pollsters they do - they need to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
For the next 11 months we can expect more of the same from the lame duck and lamer Congress.
When the Democrats won control of Congress a year ago, they promised bold new leadership. Things would change, they said. They had a mandate.
But they didn't have the votes to stand up to veto threats by Bush and filibusters by Senate Republicans. They didn't have the bold new leadership, either. A year later, Congress is lamer than the lame-duck president.
On the Democrats' No. 1 issue, the war in Iraq, it's been a year of defeat and surrender. They were going to "bring the troops home." Instead, President Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The "surge," coupled with a new counter-insurgency strategy, has led to a sharp decline in military and civilian deaths. All attempts to link war funding to a withdrawal timetable fizzled. Giving up completely, Congress passed $70 billion in no-strings war funding before the Christmas recess.
Democratic leaders blame their impotence on Bush's obstinacy. Bush didn't compromise. He didn't have to.
Democrats talked about limiting the excesses of the Patriot Act, banning cruel CIA interrogation tactics and closing the Guant�namo Bay internment camp. Didn't happen.
Instead, Congress authorized warrantless surveillance for six months by passing the Protect America Act before the August recess. Democrats were forced to push discussion on making the surveillance rules permanent into January. Bush will likely win this one, too.
After months of wrangling, Congress approved an omnibus budget bill that gave Bush the spending levels he wanted.
Promising fiscal discipline, the Democrats vowed to pay for any tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere or spending cuts. That "pay as you go pledge" was put aside to pass a popular bill protecting 23 million middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers from paying $2,000 extra under the alternative minimum tax. Since the tax was originally designed to prevent the super-rich from using tax shelters, conservative Democrats tried to close tax shelters used by super-rich hedge-fund managers to cover the $50 million revenue loss. They lost.
Congress made baby steps toward fiscal discipline by trimming "earmarks" for pet projects by 25 percent from 2006, estimates Taxpayers for Common Sense. But legislators OK'd more than $15 billion for more than 11,000 pork-barrel projects.
President Bush didn't win them all: Social Security reform went nowhere, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind was postponed to 2008 and he couldn't rally enough Republicans to pass a complex and controversial immigration bill.
But this wasn't supposed to be his year. The triumphant Democrats made big promises a year ago, but delivered modest results. Democrats increased the minimum wage, enacted the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations into law and expanded student loans.
Most notable was the energy bill, which included the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks in 32 years.
However, Democrats dropped plans to repeal tax breaks for oil companies and require more use of alternative energy. Bush insisted. Congress caved.
On other issues, Congress acted and Bush vetoed. Congress expanded health insurance for children and approved federal funding for stem cell research, but couldn't overcome Bush's "no" vote.
Stymied repeatedly, Congress saw its approval ratings fall to record lows. When you're less popular than George W. Bush, you're pretty darned unpopular.
"I don't approve of Congress, because we haven't . . . been effective in ending the war in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco told reporters in response to the polls. "And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
2008 will be a year of partisan politics. No doubt Republicans will run against the do-nothing Congress. That could backfire. Democrats will tell voters that if they want Democratic policies - and most people tell pollsters they do - they need to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
For the next 11 months we can expect more of the same from the lame duck and lamer Congress.
more...
Macaca
03-19 01:23 PM
Lobbying in a Web World (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801138.html)
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
vghc
01-07 04:32 PM
You asked me and i tell you this. This news article was written by well known journalists around the world. His name is Robert Fisk. Just read this to get some understanding.
Robert Fisk: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask. This is not published in any Muslim media but one of the well known in Britain called "The Independent". You won't read such things in CNN or Fox or BBC.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html
I don't like either of that 2 sides, they are just a torn on this earth.
But you know what, don't expect peace if you use violence to obtain it.
It'll won't work and never will.
Robert Fisk: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask. This is not published in any Muslim media but one of the well known in Britain called "The Independent". You won't read such things in CNN or Fox or BBC.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html
I don't like either of that 2 sides, they are just a torn on this earth.
But you know what, don't expect peace if you use violence to obtain it.
It'll won't work and never will.
more...
abcdgc
12-27 01:17 AM
You are right about the lack of governance in Pakistan. And that there are more personalities and less institutions.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
Let me give you a proof about Kayani, not that you will agree with it, but I will give it a shot anyways.
Pakistan PM agreed to send ISI DG to India when he spoke with Indian PM. Later Zardari also publicly agreed to send ISI DG. Next day the three i.e. Gilani, Zardari and Kaayani had a meeting. After the meeting Pakistan announced that Pakistan will not send ISI DG to India. Now, if Gilani and Zardari agreed to send ISI DG, why the conclusion of the meeting was with the decision that ISI DG will not go to India. It was the starting point of escalation. Who triggered it? Kaayani. This is a well covered report. The point is, if sending ISI DG could deescalate the situation, and if India is asking to send ISI DG, why would Pakistan not send ISI DG even after PM and President agreed sending Pasha to India? Kaayani was himself ISI chief when Musharraf was President/Army Chief. The point is Hamid Gul, Kaayni and Pasha are all same group of cheats.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
Let me give you a proof about Kayani, not that you will agree with it, but I will give it a shot anyways.
Pakistan PM agreed to send ISI DG to India when he spoke with Indian PM. Later Zardari also publicly agreed to send ISI DG. Next day the three i.e. Gilani, Zardari and Kaayani had a meeting. After the meeting Pakistan announced that Pakistan will not send ISI DG to India. Now, if Gilani and Zardari agreed to send ISI DG, why the conclusion of the meeting was with the decision that ISI DG will not go to India. It was the starting point of escalation. Who triggered it? Kaayani. This is a well covered report. The point is, if sending ISI DG could deescalate the situation, and if India is asking to send ISI DG, why would Pakistan not send ISI DG even after PM and President agreed sending Pasha to India? Kaayani was himself ISI chief when Musharraf was President/Army Chief. The point is Hamid Gul, Kaayni and Pasha are all same group of cheats.
2010 Gold. Second Page for Element
lakshman.easwaran
07-10 03:19 PM
After going through this post
I checked my I 94 last entered in 2006 it has different number than other I 94
I am working with only one company since 2004
They wrote company name src number correct on I 94
but number is not same as the one on I 797 bottom totally different
should i get it corrected ? How
I do not think you have to correct anything since your last entry I-94 card will have different number from that in 797 approval notice. I-94 number has to be the same in last entry card and 797 only if you have a situation like me as below
1) Last entry to US in 2004 - Hence have an I-94 card.
2) Switched employer in 2006. So received new 797 approval notice alongwith updated I-94.
In my case, the updated I-94 and the last entry I-94 card have the same I-94 number.
Hope this helps.
I checked my I 94 last entered in 2006 it has different number than other I 94
I am working with only one company since 2004
They wrote company name src number correct on I 94
but number is not same as the one on I 797 bottom totally different
should i get it corrected ? How
I do not think you have to correct anything since your last entry I-94 card will have different number from that in 797 approval notice. I-94 number has to be the same in last entry card and 797 only if you have a situation like me as below
1) Last entry to US in 2004 - Hence have an I-94 card.
2) Switched employer in 2006. So received new 797 approval notice alongwith updated I-94.
In my case, the updated I-94 and the last entry I-94 card have the same I-94 number.
Hope this helps.
more...
mbartosik
04-09 12:39 PM
we've found that the more compelling arguments tend to be those related to US competitiveness. If I was to use the housing argument in a meeting, I would use it in a light hearted way while making a serious point. But it would certainly not be an issue that would be worth focusing on.
You said it in post above -- e.g. competitive with European blue card.
(The Blue Card is not like GC, however, comparing with UK and right to remain after a fixed 5 year period would be an argument more compelling than housing)
Which are the most compelling arguments will also depend on the law maker's background. For some family issues are a factor, then housing can be brought into the mix with other issues like age out. However, law makers with which the family issues hold greater sway also are more likely to hold us hostage for CIR and relief for the undocumented.
For most, common sense of justice is an issue, in which case housing can be brought up, but again, not an issue to focus on too much, more in the context of 'it is ironic that many of us want to buy houses but GC wait is what prohibits that, not the credit crunch'. Can be mentioned in passing, but not worth focusing on.
You said it in post above -- e.g. competitive with European blue card.
(The Blue Card is not like GC, however, comparing with UK and right to remain after a fixed 5 year period would be an argument more compelling than housing)
Which are the most compelling arguments will also depend on the law maker's background. For some family issues are a factor, then housing can be brought into the mix with other issues like age out. However, law makers with which the family issues hold greater sway also are more likely to hold us hostage for CIR and relief for the undocumented.
For most, common sense of justice is an issue, in which case housing can be brought up, but again, not an issue to focus on too much, more in the context of 'it is ironic that many of us want to buy houses but GC wait is what prohibits that, not the credit crunch'. Can be mentioned in passing, but not worth focusing on.
hair A Pinball table featuring an
gomirage
06-07 10:21 PM
For me its a very simple thing, print that damn thing of plastic and I will buy.
lol, can't blame you.
lol, can't blame you.
more...
Beemar
12-30 09:35 PM
It is preposterous to compare Mumbai attacks with a speculative India involvement in Baluchistan.
The principal actors, i.e. the actual fighters on the ground in Baluchitan are all Baluchis. Were Qasaab and his other 9 companions Kashmiris? What locus standi these west punjabi fighters have to attack Mumbai?
Baluch conflict is limited primarily to armed skirmishes between Pakitani army and BLA (and may be some other Baluch nationalist groups). In military terms it can legitimately be called fair fight because both parties are armed. But can shooting unarmed civilians in the back who are sipping coffee or eating dinner or just waiting for a train be called a fair fight? Can the rules of engagement of any country, or the morals of any religion permit that? Isn�t this a text book example of pure unadultrated terrorism.
I think I agree with quite a lot of what you say. But I think there is some truth in Pakistani fears that India is already supporting anti-state actors in Pakistan, like in Balochistan.
I don't think we all want that.
I don't think even all Indians want that.
I don't think its in the interest of India, or anyone else for that matter, to have a huge Afghanistan on its Eastern border.
The principal actors, i.e. the actual fighters on the ground in Baluchitan are all Baluchis. Were Qasaab and his other 9 companions Kashmiris? What locus standi these west punjabi fighters have to attack Mumbai?
Baluch conflict is limited primarily to armed skirmishes between Pakitani army and BLA (and may be some other Baluch nationalist groups). In military terms it can legitimately be called fair fight because both parties are armed. But can shooting unarmed civilians in the back who are sipping coffee or eating dinner or just waiting for a train be called a fair fight? Can the rules of engagement of any country, or the morals of any religion permit that? Isn�t this a text book example of pure unadultrated terrorism.
I think I agree with quite a lot of what you say. But I think there is some truth in Pakistani fears that India is already supporting anti-state actors in Pakistan, like in Balochistan.
I don't think we all want that.
I don't think even all Indians want that.
I don't think its in the interest of India, or anyone else for that matter, to have a huge Afghanistan on its Eastern border.
hot Pairing refined elements (gold
pappu
08-05 09:33 PM
In a poor zoo of India, a lion was frustrated as he was offered not more than 1 kg meat a day. The lion thought its prayers were answered when one US Zoo Manager visited the zoo and requested the zoo management to shift the lion to the US Zoo.
The lion was so happy and started thinking of a central A/c environment, a goat or two every day and a US Green Card also.
On its first day after arrival, the lion was offered a big bag, sealed very nicely for breakfast. The lion opened it quickly but was shocked to see that it contained few bananas. Then the lion thought that may be they cared too much for him as they were worried about his stomach as he had recently shifted from India.
The next day the same thing happened. On the third day again the same food bag of bananas was delivered.
The lion was so furious, it stopped the delivery boy and blasted at him, 'Don't you know I am the lion... king of the Jungle..., what's wrong with your management?, what nonsense is this? Why are you delivering bananas to me?'
The delivery boy politely said, 'Sir, I know you are the king of the jungle but ..did you know that you have been brought here on a monkey's visa!!!
Moral: Better to be a Lion in India than a Monkey elsewhere!!!
:D:D:D:D
If you are interested to lead this effort, you can lead a thread of jokes on the forum and lighten up everyone.
The lion was so happy and started thinking of a central A/c environment, a goat or two every day and a US Green Card also.
On its first day after arrival, the lion was offered a big bag, sealed very nicely for breakfast. The lion opened it quickly but was shocked to see that it contained few bananas. Then the lion thought that may be they cared too much for him as they were worried about his stomach as he had recently shifted from India.
The next day the same thing happened. On the third day again the same food bag of bananas was delivered.
The lion was so furious, it stopped the delivery boy and blasted at him, 'Don't you know I am the lion... king of the Jungle..., what's wrong with your management?, what nonsense is this? Why are you delivering bananas to me?'
The delivery boy politely said, 'Sir, I know you are the king of the jungle but ..did you know that you have been brought here on a monkey's visa!!!
Moral: Better to be a Lion in India than a Monkey elsewhere!!!
:D:D:D:D
If you are interested to lead this effort, you can lead a thread of jokes on the forum and lighten up everyone.
more...
house Table Lamps
bigboy007
09-29 11:17 PM
We can argue this for long and long ... some ppl say obama is good some ppl say McCain is good... Neither we have chance to determine who would be next. Please dont jump on me...
But we can discuss on what we can do or have to do based on "IF" "Obama is elected president and as understandable Senator Durbin determines the rules of the game for EB Immigrants.." what are our options , what can we do overcome the crisis through IV , I think this is constructive discussion... and what direction would and will benefit all of us , I see this happening as nightmare.
Some ppl might argue that its in hands of Congress and Senate... thats right who ever would have followed on CIR 2007 debate its understandable thats the basic rule. But if you see last year the reason bill was defeated was with narrow voting. There is a good chance these numbers might change due to elections new senators might come in. Also argument is there might not be much heat as elections are over , IF not we are all happy and if comes again we need to pursue this again as we did in 2007. But things might change we should be prepared to handle in the apt and best way we can for our best benefit.
Taking in to other direction if McCain might win I dont see any -ve challenges if not positive. Lets change our direction from whoz best to what to do if such scenario arises ... there are lot of ppl from INdian origin in Obama campaign.. will they help...
My point is if McCain is elected, there is no chance for GC debates. The economy will become so bad that there won't be any support from any law makers. Nobody will touch the immigration bill.
But we can discuss on what we can do or have to do based on "IF" "Obama is elected president and as understandable Senator Durbin determines the rules of the game for EB Immigrants.." what are our options , what can we do overcome the crisis through IV , I think this is constructive discussion... and what direction would and will benefit all of us , I see this happening as nightmare.
Some ppl might argue that its in hands of Congress and Senate... thats right who ever would have followed on CIR 2007 debate its understandable thats the basic rule. But if you see last year the reason bill was defeated was with narrow voting. There is a good chance these numbers might change due to elections new senators might come in. Also argument is there might not be much heat as elections are over , IF not we are all happy and if comes again we need to pursue this again as we did in 2007. But things might change we should be prepared to handle in the apt and best way we can for our best benefit.
Taking in to other direction if McCain might win I dont see any -ve challenges if not positive. Lets change our direction from whoz best to what to do if such scenario arises ... there are lot of ppl from INdian origin in Obama campaign.. will they help...
My point is if McCain is elected, there is no chance for GC debates. The economy will become so bad that there won't be any support from any law makers. Nobody will touch the immigration bill.
tattoo table of elements.
unitednations
03-24 02:47 AM
A lot of the list and questions that you are being asked is what department of labor asks when they are investigating possible h-1b violations. What they have asked you is usually in those types of investigations.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
more...
pictures Why Gold Is the Perfect
Arjun
07-14 08:42 PM
Still better abolish Eb1/ Eb2/ Eb3 when there is no EBx in H1 then why EBx in GC? come on guys stratification on EB is reality along with preference order set by CIS. What is stopping eb3 guys from moving to eb2?
you know what it takes to do that. Just think, if you were in eb3 and had applied in 2001 and now suggested to start all over again. It is very easy to say go change your category.
you know what it takes to do that. Just think, if you were in eb3 and had applied in 2001 and now suggested to start all over again. It is very easy to say go change your category.
dresses Elements Gold
ita
01-04 12:51 AM
I think it's now a moot point with you playing obtuse( genuinely or otherwise)
Also I'm tempted to respectfully ask you to go through your posts rather than ask me how your are doing circles...
Check this one out...this is what you have been going on about....
proof for Kayani's involvement->How the entire episode could be Indian media's hype ->how the expectation to shed the inertia build up in Pak being a bit much->attributing the entire thing to hostile relationship btwn the 2 countries->How pakitanis think it's Taiban that's involved->Supposed Indian involvement in Pakistan destablization->non-state actors->How Masood and others should be rounded up->Etradition treaty uncertainity->screwing Dawood as he is past->Bihari thieves-> How Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why. 9/11->state->roaches->Paki state govt->don't know what else.
It looks like you concede a point to keep peddling anything/new things into the already complicated scenario. If you don't agree then please do what you find suitable.I don't want to be contributing into this frivolously logical loop any more than what I've already done.
Thank you.
Could you point out the circular logic that I am using?
Also I'm tempted to respectfully ask you to go through your posts rather than ask me how your are doing circles...
Check this one out...this is what you have been going on about....
proof for Kayani's involvement->How the entire episode could be Indian media's hype ->how the expectation to shed the inertia build up in Pak being a bit much->attributing the entire thing to hostile relationship btwn the 2 countries->How pakitanis think it's Taiban that's involved->Supposed Indian involvement in Pakistan destablization->non-state actors->How Masood and others should be rounded up->Etradition treaty uncertainity->screwing Dawood as he is past->Bihari thieves-> How Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why. 9/11->state->roaches->Paki state govt->don't know what else.
It looks like you concede a point to keep peddling anything/new things into the already complicated scenario. If you don't agree then please do what you find suitable.I don't want to be contributing into this frivolously logical loop any more than what I've already done.
Thank you.
Could you point out the circular logic that I am using?
more...
makeup gold element rolling shot
nixstor
08-10 10:45 PM
Yewwwww. Stupid morons get to run the show on CNN who consider guest worker program for Illegal Aliens and H1B the same.
I dont understand why USCIS has to release data to a random attorney guy.
Why the hell doesnt he know how many H1B's are being issued every year? Is this attorney guy sleeping or what? 65K and they are gone on May26th 2006Huh?
I dont understand why USCIS has to release data to a random attorney guy.
Why the hell doesnt he know how many H1B's are being issued every year? Is this attorney guy sleeping or what? 65K and they are gone on May26th 2006Huh?
girlfriend Insights Into Periodic Table
bondgoli007
01-06 05:06 PM
At the same time read about "Greater Middle East", "Greater Isreal" and "New world Order" , "Unipolar world" etc if you have time.
What would be the purpose of reading all that? I thought the spotlight was on hamas...this is how you try to move the spotlight away huh!!
What would be the purpose of reading all that? I thought the spotlight was on hamas...this is how you try to move the spotlight away huh!!
hairstyles at the table of element
hpandey
06-25 04:13 PM
If you have only been reading all the doomsday articles on the net about another nosedive in the realestate market, then I must suggest you to step out and smell the coffee. Other than in a few areas like Detroit and Miami, the home prices are close to stable and are not heading to fall another 10%. When people write articles they want to sensationalize thier reports. What's happening in Detriot will not be happening everywhere in the nation. Real estate markets are very local and cannot be generalized. So anyone that is thinking that there is going to be another HUGE drop in home prices are mistaken.
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
I agree with you . Most of the people in this thread against home ownership are thinking that house prices are going to keep on falling and interest rates are going to be this low forever based on front page news articles.
I think its time for people to realize that the housing bubble burst in 2007 and we are already two years into it . The people who brought houses in the period of 2003 - 2007 suffered since they bought when the bubble was peaking but in the last two years the price correction has happened and in most good areas the prices are not falling anymore.
I am not asking anyone to buy or rent .. its a personal decision but if you believe that one year down the line you will get a more cheaper house and the interest rates would still be at 5 % you should think twice .
House is not an investment but a side effect of home ownership is that you will end up with a property but if you continue to rent you are sure to end up with nothing .
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
I agree with you . Most of the people in this thread against home ownership are thinking that house prices are going to keep on falling and interest rates are going to be this low forever based on front page news articles.
I think its time for people to realize that the housing bubble burst in 2007 and we are already two years into it . The people who brought houses in the period of 2003 - 2007 suffered since they bought when the bubble was peaking but in the last two years the price correction has happened and in most good areas the prices are not falling anymore.
I am not asking anyone to buy or rent .. its a personal decision but if you believe that one year down the line you will get a more cheaper house and the interest rates would still be at 5 % you should think twice .
House is not an investment but a side effect of home ownership is that you will end up with a property but if you continue to rent you are sure to end up with nothing .
GCnightmare
08-02 11:24 AM
I am on H1 since 1999 with same employer except for a long interval of 16 months. I filed my labor in April 2001 (assuming 245(i) will cover me). I was not on payroll during Aug 03 to Dec 04. So my W2 for 2003 is 33% less than LCA and no W2 for 2004. I last entered US in Sept. 03
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
file485
07-08 05:05 PM
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
I am not aware of any GC stage that requires all pay stubs. How did they detect missing pay stubs for 6+ months?
reminds me of a backhome saying..
'pinching the butt and singing a lullaby" :)
the only way the relationship between the employer/employee is the green$$ pay stub...never trust these USCIS Memo's ..all crap and BS..
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
I am not aware of any GC stage that requires all pay stubs. How did they detect missing pay stubs for 6+ months?
reminds me of a backhome saying..
'pinching the butt and singing a lullaby" :)
the only way the relationship between the employer/employee is the green$$ pay stub...never trust these USCIS Memo's ..all crap and BS..
No comments:
Post a Comment