sertasheep
10-16 09:28 PM
Check out tips and tricks as well as pictures from meet-and-greet events at some of the IV Chapters on the IV blog at immigrationvoice.blogspot.com (http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com)
Also check out the list of quick links on the left hand side of the blog to access your state chapters.
Also check out the list of quick links on the left hand side of the blog to access your state chapters.
wallpaper Apple iPad 2 with Wi-Fi + 3G
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
lakshman.easwaran
07-23 08:50 PM
Yes you can apply for 485 without 140 receipt. Check http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
2011 First Apple iPad 2 TV
laborday
07-19 07:05 PM
:confused: Experts - what is your guess for the cutoff date of EB2/EB3 India in Oct'07 visa bulletin?
more...
mendenken
06-22 04:54 PM
Hello all,
Form I-693 downloading from the following site is valid until 6/30/07.
Is it ok to use this form though we will be filing the I-485 on 07/01/07.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-693.pdf.
Form I-693 downloading from the following site is valid until 6/30/07.
Is it ok to use this form though we will be filing the I-485 on 07/01/07.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-693.pdf.
Blog Feeds
08-31 09:50 PM
Immigration Visa Attorney Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
Yet another update to the H-1B quota, also known as the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 H-1B cap.
Approximately 34,900 cases have been receipted by USCIS for the regular Bachelor's degree H-1B quota.
Approximately 13,000 cases have been receipted by USCIS for the advanced degree H-1B quota open to applicants who have earned Master's or higher degrees from US colleges and universities.
Good luck to all H-1B applicants! ---ecf
More... (http://www.immigrationvisaattorneyblog.com/2010/08/h1b-quota-slow-and-steady-usag.html)
Yet another update to the H-1B quota, also known as the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 H-1B cap.
Approximately 34,900 cases have been receipted by USCIS for the regular Bachelor's degree H-1B quota.
Approximately 13,000 cases have been receipted by USCIS for the advanced degree H-1B quota open to applicants who have earned Master's or higher degrees from US colleges and universities.
Good luck to all H-1B applicants! ---ecf
More... (http://www.immigrationvisaattorneyblog.com/2010/08/h1b-quota-slow-and-steady-usag.html)
more...
aaaa4321
08-25 09:41 AM
Does anyone have an idea about 8/24 receipt update as it is not out yet.
Please advice
Please advice
2010 View Apple ipad 2 Wi-Fi + 3G
jasonpark
August 17th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Monarch
more...
vik_tx
11-29 04:44 PM
Congratulations!!! can u share your PD, category and RD?
pd - 4/2003
eb2
rd - 6/2007
pd - 4/2003
eb2
rd - 6/2007
hair Image 1 - Apple iPad 2: photos
beautifulMind
06-28 12:04 AM
My job title changed from programmer anaylst to technology and system anayst. This was an internal change in my company where they re classified everyone. My job duties remain exactly the same. My employer is also willing to write my job title as the old one on the employer verification letter.
However there is a slight problem. My recent pay stubs show my new job title. Nowhere else the old job title is mentioned..
will this be a problem?
Should I put my new job title as the one in 485 application even though my 140 and perm labor had my old title?
Please suggest
However there is a slight problem. My recent pay stubs show my new job title. Nowhere else the old job title is mentioned..
will this be a problem?
Should I put my new job title as the one in 485 application even though my 140 and perm labor had my old title?
Please suggest
more...
good idea
09-08 01:31 PM
it's date when your PERM application was filed.
Priority date - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_date)
thanks.
Priority date - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_date)
thanks.
hot The iPad 2 features a new dual
immigration.matters10
07-18 07:50 AM
I work for company A. I am on a project actively with an end client from last one year. My company A stopped paying me from past 5 months in spite of them getting paid from the vendor. I have requested my company to release all my payments pending from last 5 months repeatedly. But they don't seem to bother. I am planning to change my employer now.
My question is Am i out of status since I am not getting paid from last 5 months? I have luckily all the copies of pay stubs till a month ago. Only thing is that I haven;t received them yet. Please let me know
My question is Am i out of status since I am not getting paid from last 5 months? I have luckily all the copies of pay stubs till a month ago. Only thing is that I haven;t received them yet. Please let me know
more...
house Apple iPad 2 Review
Blog Feeds
08-30 09:40 PM
A Democratic Senator working on immigration reform says a bill is not happening this year. Is this news?
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/from-the-department-of-no-duh.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/08/from-the-department-of-no-duh.html)
tattoo Apple+ipad+2+launch+video
Nao
03-23 12:18 AM
Hello.
I will be needing a new re-entry permit(i-131) while renewing my green card and i was wondering if it was possible.
I am going to study back in my home country for 4yrs.
first 2yrs(2010-2012), i am going back with reentry permit.
after 2yrs(2012), i am going back to USA for 6months to renew my green card(going to expire in 2012) and reapply for a new reentry permit.
If i wont have time to get my new green card, i am possibly thinking of going back to my home country for 5 months and going back to USA for 2 wks (to retain green card status) and again, going back to my homecountry for 3 months.
Would going back and forth to my homecountry and USA will affect me from losing my green card?
Any advise will be helpful. Thank you!
I will be needing a new re-entry permit(i-131) while renewing my green card and i was wondering if it was possible.
I am going to study back in my home country for 4yrs.
first 2yrs(2010-2012), i am going back with reentry permit.
after 2yrs(2012), i am going back to USA for 6months to renew my green card(going to expire in 2012) and reapply for a new reentry permit.
If i wont have time to get my new green card, i am possibly thinking of going back to my home country for 5 months and going back to USA for 2 wks (to retain green card status) and again, going back to my homecountry for 3 months.
Would going back and forth to my homecountry and USA will affect me from losing my green card?
Any advise will be helpful. Thank you!
more...
pictures Apple, Ipad 2, India, Price
ashokmads
02-13 04:10 PM
Hi All,
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
dresses Apple iPad 2 is faster than
sss9i
08-19 10:58 PM
Hi
Do I need to fill G-28 Form along with I-140, I-485.
We didn't fill any form like that. Is it o.k.??
She (Attorney) is representing for Company,not representing for Client and Company, but She signed on I-140 and I-485.
I will appreciate for your input.
Do I need to fill G-28 Form along with I-140, I-485.
We didn't fill any form like that. Is it o.k.??
She (Attorney) is representing for Company,not representing for Client and Company, but She signed on I-140 and I-485.
I will appreciate for your input.
more...
makeup iPad 2 Wi-Fi only
chess
07-18 02:53 PM
I too have the exact same question. Any insights anyone?
girlfriend Apple iPad 2 Handy Shell
smuggymba
09-18 12:48 PM
who will take care of the elderly parents in India? Since you're US citizen, u can apply GC for ur parents also. It's tough to leave ur old parents in India and just worry about a good lifestyle for the brother. None of my business but just a thought.
hairstyles Apple#39;s iPad 2 sales soar in
truthinspector
06-14 07:09 PM
Domicile Certificate i.e. Certificate of nationality shows the date of birth.Can this be used instead of Birth Certificate?
virtual55
03-20 03:22 PM
http://www.nrilinks.com/usa/indians/assc.htm
guys if any of you are members of the above organizations request them to send a mass email to their members about Immigration Voice. If you have any links of other organizations post them here and contact them.
Here is the email format:
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=36
guys if any of you are members of the above organizations request them to send a mass email to their members about Immigration Voice. If you have any links of other organizations post them here and contact them.
Here is the email format:
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=36
cagedcactus
11-24 02:48 PM
so many viewed, but not a single reply.....
No comments:
Post a Comment