alanc
09-01 01:09 PM
I am currently starting a language institute in California. I incorporated the organization 2 years ago, but I am starting it now. I want to hire a Brazilian national on an h2b visa to teach Portuguese but I am worried that as I am starting the business now and haven't generated income yet I won't be allowed to hire this teacher. Is this something I should worry about? Thank you for any help. I appreciate it.
Alan
Alan
wallpaper Best celebrity haircuts
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
CantLeaveAmerica
03-18 09:18 AM
Thanks for your reply. I was off for a month and a half to complete a paper for my Masters and have proof for the same...I was not able to juggle both work and studies....will USCIS consider this excuse to be at home studying without pay?
2011 haircut hairstyles trends
sundar99
04-21 04:54 PM
My friend mentioned
Two of the immigrants spoke on their success, one is entrueprener in Nano tech who studied in US and also opened his company !, another is a student...
overall - it was a pretty interesting one.
Two of the immigrants spoke on their success, one is entrueprener in Nano tech who studied in US and also opened his company !, another is a student...
overall - it was a pretty interesting one.
more...
buehler
06-10 05:09 PM
This is a old video which was created last year right after all those protest marches by the illegals. But pretty interesting for many of our new members.
subba
04-12 08:23 PM
Hello,
I sent you a PM with some info.
Hope you find it useful.
Thanks,
Subba
I sent you a PM with some info.
Hope you find it useful.
Thanks,
Subba
more...
manand24
08-03 02:57 PM
Did you guys talk about this already ? I apologize if this has been analyzed already...
Murthy.com issues a Oct visa bulletin prediction based on information from DOS
http://murthy.com/news/n_oct07vb.html
Old information!
Murthy.com issues a Oct visa bulletin prediction based on information from DOS
http://murthy.com/news/n_oct07vb.html
Old information!
2010 hairstyles from
seshadrik
02-01 07:18 PM
Hi,
I did not find a conclusive answer to my situation when i looked up multiple immigration forums.Hoping you folks can help.
My H1B expired on Jan 13th 2011 and my employer filed for extension on Dec 17th (Regular process) for Client A using LCA filed for City A. The case status is in initial review. Due to project reasons employer now wants me to move to City B for the same client. But my company's immigration dept have some reservations doing the relocation while the H1 extension is not approved yet.
1) Can we move to a location other than the one filed in LCA before the extension approval.
2) Can we use a already existing LCA for city B.( My company already has a Blanket LCA in city B). what is the relationship between the validity of the LCA and the H1 extension that is being requested in the petition.
3) Can we file a new LCA for city B. would this need a H1 amendment
4) Will any of the above options negatively impact my extension approval.
I did not find a conclusive answer to my situation when i looked up multiple immigration forums.Hoping you folks can help.
My H1B expired on Jan 13th 2011 and my employer filed for extension on Dec 17th (Regular process) for Client A using LCA filed for City A. The case status is in initial review. Due to project reasons employer now wants me to move to City B for the same client. But my company's immigration dept have some reservations doing the relocation while the H1 extension is not approved yet.
1) Can we move to a location other than the one filed in LCA before the extension approval.
2) Can we use a already existing LCA for city B.( My company already has a Blanket LCA in city B). what is the relationship between the validity of the LCA and the H1 extension that is being requested in the petition.
3) Can we file a new LCA for city B. would this need a H1 amendment
4) Will any of the above options negatively impact my extension approval.
more...
ilikekilo
01-24 07:21 PM
nice gesture there
hair best celeb hairstyles. celebs
vxg
10-12 02:29 PM
I am listening to the call. Debra Rogers from USCIS stated:
1. Approx 300 k EB cases received in Jul AUG.
2. All Family based cases entered and receipts issued.
3. All EB based AOS applications will be entered and receipts issued by End of this month.
1. Approx 300 k EB cases received in Jul AUG.
2. All Family based cases entered and receipts issued.
3. All EB based AOS applications will be entered and receipts issued by End of this month.
more...
sargon
10-20 11:51 AM
please reply to linked thread.
hot summer! celebs hairstyles.
raj1982
11-24 11:43 AM
I have filed the H1B(I129) transfer and extension on H4(I539) in the month of June 18th and then upgraded to premimum process in the month of November, after 2 days it got approved and within the next two days they changed the status to RFE and requested to send the paystubs for the past 3 months. I have all the paystubs and our attorney sent the response with the paystubs to USCIS. In between this my wife travelled to India when my I129 and I539 pending.
1) Do you think there will be any problem for my visa to be approved(since my wife is in India)?
2) Can my wife visa gets approved when she was in India?
3) How long do they take to respond to the RFE?
Please advice.
Thanks,
Raj
1) Do you think there will be any problem for my visa to be approved(since my wife is in India)?
2) Can my wife visa gets approved when she was in India?
3) How long do they take to respond to the RFE?
Please advice.
Thanks,
Raj
more...
house Best Straight Hairstyle
chanduv23
09-14 04:56 PM
Yes this is the chance
tattoo celeb hairstyles 2009
devs
06-26 05:29 AM
hi,
My h1 is approved in this years quota but i have not received I797. During this period if my h4 is stamped will my h1 be cancelled. or can i go to US on
h4 and then change my status to h1 ?
My h1 is approved in this years quota but i have not received I797. During this period if my h4 is stamped will my h1 be cancelled. or can i go to US on
h4 and then change my status to h1 ?
more...
pictures gorgeous long hairstyle at
Lmason
08-02 05:44 AM
i like it
dresses celebs hairstyles. celebs
roseball
11-16 12:23 AM
Shouldnt be an issue as GC can be for a future job.....For H1 stamping, your current job requirements and title should be same as the requirements/title on your H1 petition/LCA....
more...
makeup hairstyles images 2011
funny
03-02 07:36 PM
I have 2 I-140s
EB3 10/10/2003
EB2 07/06/2006
Trying to use my EB3 date in the EB2 category
Just spoke to an IO at TSC, She told me that the case is at a place what they call "Pending Review and final decision"
I asked her whats the next step after this?
IO : Hope fully will be assigne to some one
I Asked, isn't this the place where all the cases are "Pending Review and Final decision"?
IO: a big NO...no no..this is not the place where all the cases are, I can't provide anymore info then this, I was just being nice because you called at 3:30 pm.
Any body who has thier case in the pool of "Pending review and final decision".
Honestly, I think its just a general status that she told me about my 485 case.
EB3 10/10/2003
EB2 07/06/2006
Trying to use my EB3 date in the EB2 category
Just spoke to an IO at TSC, She told me that the case is at a place what they call "Pending Review and final decision"
I asked her whats the next step after this?
IO : Hope fully will be assigne to some one
I Asked, isn't this the place where all the cases are "Pending Review and Final decision"?
IO: a big NO...no no..this is not the place where all the cases are, I can't provide anymore info then this, I was just being nice because you called at 3:30 pm.
Any body who has thier case in the pool of "Pending review and final decision".
Honestly, I think its just a general status that she told me about my 485 case.
girlfriend celeb bob hairstyles. quot
africanKing
06-13 08:42 AM
I need help. How do i, after importing the Photoshop file, convert the different parts of the file into usable Controls like Buttons, Textboxes etc. And how do i then add Events in them so i can code in Visual Studio
hairstyles celeb hairstyles 2009
GCard_Dream
04-11 12:56 PM
I have been working in DFT/Test field for few years now and it appears that my current group is leaning more and more towards Test Development for SOCs and less in DFT work. I really would like to pursue DFT as a career and have been looking for a job in DFT field. Not only that, moving to a newer company might help me in getting the green card faster; possibly.
Is anyone here working in the DFT field? If so, do you know of any job openings in your group or anywhere else for that matter?
Any help will be very much appreciated.
Is anyone here working in the DFT field? If so, do you know of any job openings in your group or anywhere else for that matter?
Any help will be very much appreciated.
loudobbs
10-25 09:54 AM
I ve got the right connections....;););)
your IV screen name might....:D:D
your IV screen name might....:D:D
silpa_23
05-18 08:00 AM
Greetings,
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
No comments:
Post a Comment