Dodge Challenger 1970
images Dodge Challenger: 1970-1974,
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
wallpaper Dodge Challenger 1970
DesiTech
06-01 06:25 PM
hi viewers,
any help will be appreciate in this matter. MY PD is June/2003 and my i-140 approved few weeks back. When can I file my 485 ? do I need to wait till PD ?
Also can I transfer to other company maintaining my approved i-140 and PD ?
What are risks involved here.
Thanks U all in advance.
any help will be appreciate in this matter. MY PD is June/2003 and my i-140 approved few weeks back. When can I file my 485 ? do I need to wait till PD ?
Also can I transfer to other company maintaining my approved i-140 and PD ?
What are risks involved here.
Thanks U all in advance.
moe
02-11 08:06 AM
wow.. thanks guys.. you guys so nice..i didt come illegal here.. like you see i said i lost my statu becouse some thing stupit happens..and i try to stay legal..anyway..thank for you support..
2011 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T
jonty_11
08-06 12:46 PM
did u happen to call USCIS Cust Service...which may have trigerred your approval?
more...
kaisersose
07-26 03:16 PM
My company filed my green card and have applied for 485 for me and my wife on July 19 with July visa bulletin reinstated. We have also applied for AP and EAD for my wife. We both are on H1 at this time. My wife' job is going to end by month end.
Does she need to file change of status to H4 or it is fine to stay in US with AOS pending status.
My 140 is still pending
As far as I know, if a 485 is pending, a person can continue to be in the US without a visa. So she would not require a H-4.
All the same, I would still get a H-4 as this will be advantageous as,
1. Your receipt has not yet arrived. What if the Application is rejected for initial evidence problem?
2. AP takes a long time to come and she has to make an urgent trip back home?
3. 485 gets denied by mistake. She has to have a valid status to fall back on, so you can file motion to reopen, etc.
The chances of any of the above happening are low, but it is better to anticipate trouble and be as prepared as we can.
Does she need to file change of status to H4 or it is fine to stay in US with AOS pending status.
My 140 is still pending
As far as I know, if a 485 is pending, a person can continue to be in the US without a visa. So she would not require a H-4.
All the same, I would still get a H-4 as this will be advantageous as,
1. Your receipt has not yet arrived. What if the Application is rejected for initial evidence problem?
2. AP takes a long time to come and she has to make an urgent trip back home?
3. 485 gets denied by mistake. She has to have a valid status to fall back on, so you can file motion to reopen, etc.
The chances of any of the above happening are low, but it is better to anticipate trouble and be as prepared as we can.
Steve Mitchell
February 2nd, 2004, 11:22 PM
Here are the compatable lenses from the spec sheet:
Compatible Lenses
1) DX Nikkor : All functions supported
2) Type G or D AF Nikkor : All functions supported 3) Micro Nikkor 85 mm F2.8D : All functions supported except autofocus and some exposure modes 4) Other AF Nikkor*2 : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-fl ash for digital SLR
5) AI-P Nikkor : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-flash for digital SLR, and autofocus
6) Non-CPU : Can be used in exposure mode M, but exposure meter does not function; electronic range finder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster *1 IX Nikkor lenses can not be used; *2 Excluding lenses for F3AF
Not sure about the flash...maybe StevenT will see this and help you out. Also, not sure if you've seen the full official spec sheet, but here it is. Click here (http://www.dphoto.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=121).
Hi,
From an old time NIkon user with of all cameras the N70 (sort of ironic). I currently own a canon dig camera (s50) and I have found the need for a better optical zoom range, and stronger flash.
Almost bought the new canon rebel, but since I own some nikon equipment, and heard about d70, I held off.
So, the questions:;;
1) Will I be able to use my Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm lens?
2) How about my Sigma 70-300mm apo macro for nikon?
3) I also have sb26 nikon flash?
Are these all usable? WIll I be giving up functionality with these lenses or flash? Obviously, I'm more willing to spend 1k on the camera if I can utilize my current investment in my lenses and flash.
Thanks
Craig
Compatible Lenses
1) DX Nikkor : All functions supported
2) Type G or D AF Nikkor : All functions supported 3) Micro Nikkor 85 mm F2.8D : All functions supported except autofocus and some exposure modes 4) Other AF Nikkor*2 : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-fl ash for digital SLR
5) AI-P Nikkor : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-flash for digital SLR, and autofocus
6) Non-CPU : Can be used in exposure mode M, but exposure meter does not function; electronic range finder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster *1 IX Nikkor lenses can not be used; *2 Excluding lenses for F3AF
Not sure about the flash...maybe StevenT will see this and help you out. Also, not sure if you've seen the full official spec sheet, but here it is. Click here (http://www.dphoto.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=121).
Hi,
From an old time NIkon user with of all cameras the N70 (sort of ironic). I currently own a canon dig camera (s50) and I have found the need for a better optical zoom range, and stronger flash.
Almost bought the new canon rebel, but since I own some nikon equipment, and heard about d70, I held off.
So, the questions:;;
1) Will I be able to use my Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm lens?
2) How about my Sigma 70-300mm apo macro for nikon?
3) I also have sb26 nikon flash?
Are these all usable? WIll I be giving up functionality with these lenses or flash? Obviously, I'm more willing to spend 1k on the camera if I can utilize my current investment in my lenses and flash.
Thanks
Craig
more...
shreekhand
07-26 10:06 PM
Dear Vikram,
Maybe you can list the sites you have configured to search in this custom search and we can suggest adding a few more if need be.
Nice work.
Maybe you can list the sites you have configured to search in this custom search and we can suggest adding a few more if need be.
Nice work.
2010 Barn-Find1970 Dodge Challenger
jkays94
05-03 11:20 AM
We should empahsise how the amnesty offer can set precedence for future influx of people and how US would end up as Latino country, if immigration is not controlled. This can be a sure catalyst for SJ Mercury times as they are trying to find ammunition to counter the Illegal protests
Sundar99, I do agree with some of your sentiments about promoting the cause of legal immigrants but lets not pick battles that will only be turned against IV. IV has many external detractors and the more IV gains exposure in the media, more enemies will continue to emerge. Do you suppose organizations such as FAIR, NumbersUSA and others really distinguish between IV and the undocumented movement ? Visit this blog by one of the FAIR executives : www.steinreport.com (http://www.steinreport.com) and you will understand that legal and illegal immigrants to such organizations are one and the same thing as far as they are concerned and they could care less regardless of the glaring facts. One of the concerns that you highlight is that of increased backlogs in the face of amnesty, it has been reiterated by several senators all in agreement that anyone coming through amnesty will go to the back of the line and not before legal immigrants.
We should empahsise how the amnesty offer can set precedence for future influx of people and how US would end up as Latino country, if immigration is not controlled.
Do you really want to pick a fight with the more than 43 million Americans of Hispanic origin ? This is the very same argument that bloggers are using against IV following the WP article about an invasion by persons of Chinese and Indian origin, arguments made totally out of context. Why should we emulate such organizations and stoop to their level. Lets pick our battles wisely and only those we have a chance of winning.
Sundar99, I do agree with some of your sentiments about promoting the cause of legal immigrants but lets not pick battles that will only be turned against IV. IV has many external detractors and the more IV gains exposure in the media, more enemies will continue to emerge. Do you suppose organizations such as FAIR, NumbersUSA and others really distinguish between IV and the undocumented movement ? Visit this blog by one of the FAIR executives : www.steinreport.com (http://www.steinreport.com) and you will understand that legal and illegal immigrants to such organizations are one and the same thing as far as they are concerned and they could care less regardless of the glaring facts. One of the concerns that you highlight is that of increased backlogs in the face of amnesty, it has been reiterated by several senators all in agreement that anyone coming through amnesty will go to the back of the line and not before legal immigrants.
We should empahsise how the amnesty offer can set precedence for future influx of people and how US would end up as Latino country, if immigration is not controlled.
Do you really want to pick a fight with the more than 43 million Americans of Hispanic origin ? This is the very same argument that bloggers are using against IV following the WP article about an invasion by persons of Chinese and Indian origin, arguments made totally out of context. Why should we emulate such organizations and stoop to their level. Lets pick our battles wisely and only those we have a chance of winning.
more...
JazzByTheBay
09-15 03:49 PM
Can (and should) be published on the IV web site. We really need to get better at telling our story, imho.
jazz
Wonderful idea..I am with you.....
jazz
Wonderful idea..I am with you.....
hair Dodge Challenger 1970 VIDEOS
arnet
02-12 05:10 PM
2yrs ago, my friend did H1 extension -premium processing and he filed his wife H4 extension along with his extension application. so USCIS approved both within 15 days because both are filed together.
if filed separately, i dont think you can have premium processing for H4. check with your immigration attroney as laws/procedures changes often.
if filed separately, i dont think you can have premium processing for H4. check with your immigration attroney as laws/procedures changes often.
more...
rahulpaper
08-26 01:27 PM
Did you do medical or not?
hot Foose 1970 Dodge Challenger
cmhasan
07-07 02:44 PM
Thank you Ms Martin, the information you provided is very helpful. I have similar situation: I am citizen now, we got married 4 years back that time I was permanent resident and my wife�s application was processing on employment based and still pending. She is on EAD now, not on H1 any more. One quick question when we file a new family based immigration we need to provide the information about the current employment based application since there is question in I-485 like:
Have you ever applied for permanent resident status in the U.S.? If yes give date, place of filing and final disposition.
What to answer? Surely you have to give reference to the existing application, so will it not be an issue? Will INS reject the application?
Have you ever applied for permanent resident status in the U.S.? If yes give date, place of filing and final disposition.
What to answer? Surely you have to give reference to the existing application, so will it not be an issue? Will INS reject the application?
more...
house 1970 Dodge Challenger Rt
bharat2008
10-19 11:20 PM
Hi ,
Ask your future employer to apply new H1B with consular processing(no change of status).
Wait till you get the H1B approval ,book an appointment at US consulate(preferably home country)and get stamping.As everyone mentioned you cannot work till you get I-797 and get stamping.
Ask your future employer to apply new H1B with consular processing(no change of status).
Wait till you get the H1B approval ,book an appointment at US consulate(preferably home country)and get stamping.As everyone mentioned you cannot work till you get I-797 and get stamping.
tattoo 1970 Dodge Challenger
asdqwe2k
05-09 04:36 PM
can this event me scheduled to someother day, preferably a weekend ?
Also, May 15th is mine and my daughter's birthday, so I would have to be at home in the evening ?
Also, May 15th is mine and my daughter's birthday, so I would have to be at home in the evening ?
more...
pictures my 1970 Dodge Challenger!
hianupam
11-09 08:35 AM
Texas does not give a damn about any of this.
Just saw my SSN card, old DL and EAD and gave me a license which expires in 2014.
Anybody have any recent experience in getting a TX drivers license in Houston while on EAD?
I currently have a PA driver's license that is about to expire in Dec.
Just saw my SSN card, old DL and EAD and gave me a license which expires in 2014.
Anybody have any recent experience in getting a TX drivers license in Houston while on EAD?
I currently have a PA driver's license that is about to expire in Dec.
dresses the Dodge Challenger was
santb1975
12-25 04:18 PM
for sure if you go DOL. you can take the help of an attorney to get you the amount based on your past pay stubs.
more...
makeup 1970 Dodge Challenger - Super
Mayra75
12-31 07:29 AM
Guys ,
Is there anyone know whether H1 increasing issue will be introduced again in Congress or not ?
Is there anyone know whether H1 increasing issue will be introduced again in Congress or not ?
girlfriend 2010 Dodge Challenger Plum
absaarkhan
01-10 04:28 PM
You Can work for the same Employer On H1 even after entering US on AP.
It is NOT clear Yet if we can file for H1 Transfer with another employer after entering US on Advance Parole.
Please let us know if anybody has done this successfully.
It is NOT clear Yet if we can file for H1 Transfer with another employer after entering US on Advance Parole.
Please let us know if anybody has done this successfully.
hairstyles 1970 Dodge Challenger
RDB
08-03 02:38 PM
Alright - my wife and I completed the Interview today and they asked for proof of relationship (joint assets, tax returns etc.), current employment letter and Birth Certificates. After that the officer told me that he has approved the case in the system, however, as my PD is not current they can't give me the actual card.
He also mentioned that this is the last ritual in the process and once the dates become current, all they need to do is to order the card production!
I did ask him why we were called for interview when the dates are not current and he said that the best way to process the applications received during the deluge of July 2007 is this way :) - he was kind of mad at DOS for doing that!
So, I guess I just have to wait for the Dates to become current - which might take another 5-10 years :D
Thanks for the link. Looks like I will have to get ready for an interview!!!!
He also mentioned that this is the last ritual in the process and once the dates become current, all they need to do is to order the card production!
I did ask him why we were called for interview when the dates are not current and he said that the best way to process the applications received during the deluge of July 2007 is this way :) - he was kind of mad at DOS for doing that!
So, I guess I just have to wait for the Dates to become current - which might take another 5-10 years :D
Thanks for the link. Looks like I will have to get ready for an interview!!!!
thomachan72
01-05 05:02 AM
@sanju_dba - Sorry to disappoint you. We did think about making a documentary, but in the end we all figured that a lot more people might be interested in a narrative feature film. Perhaps we are wrong, but it was just a decision that our team collectively made.
@waitingnwaiting - Thanks for your honest feedback. You are right about a lot of things. All I can say is, I've been in this country for over 10 years still waiting for a green card like a lot of people. I just wanted to do something to make more people aware of the issues. I'm passionate about film making so I figured way I can do it is to make a film about stories based on my personal experience. Now, I don't know how the audience will perceive the film or if it will change their mind. But one thing's for sure, we all have given our best to this film and attempted to tell stories that have affected our lives.
Thanks again for the comments.
I am sure everybody here will watch this one and hopefully we can get some senators also to watch this. Its great that you actually did this before somebody on the other side made a movie.
@waitingnwaiting - Thanks for your honest feedback. You are right about a lot of things. All I can say is, I've been in this country for over 10 years still waiting for a green card like a lot of people. I just wanted to do something to make more people aware of the issues. I'm passionate about film making so I figured way I can do it is to make a film about stories based on my personal experience. Now, I don't know how the audience will perceive the film or if it will change their mind. But one thing's for sure, we all have given our best to this film and attempted to tell stories that have affected our lives.
Thanks again for the comments.
I am sure everybody here will watch this one and hopefully we can get some senators also to watch this. Its great that you actually did this before somebody on the other side made a movie.
morchu
05-20 11:09 PM
The suggested method is to file a new I140 after the EB2 LC approval, along with the older I140 approval notice and a request letter quoting the related law and claiming the older priority date.
Never heard of amending an already approved I140 to a new LC.
Hi,
My employer initially filed perm and I-140 in EB3 with priority date of Dec,2005.
As I qualified for EB2 (have Master's degree), my employer's attorney is filing new EB2 perm, and he is saying that he can port the earlier priority date of EB3 after getting the approval of EB2 perm application and don�t need to file I 140 again as we already have approval for EB3 I 140 which can be converted to EB2 with new priority date.
Is it possible to have EB2 category and old priority date without refiling new I-140 ?
Thanks.
Never heard of amending an already approved I140 to a new LC.
Hi,
My employer initially filed perm and I-140 in EB3 with priority date of Dec,2005.
As I qualified for EB2 (have Master's degree), my employer's attorney is filing new EB2 perm, and he is saying that he can port the earlier priority date of EB3 after getting the approval of EB2 perm application and don�t need to file I 140 again as we already have approval for EB3 I 140 which can be converted to EB2 with new priority date.
Is it possible to have EB2 category and old priority date without refiling new I-140 ?
Thanks.
0 Yorum:
Yorum Gönder
Kaydol: Kayıt Yorumları [Atom]
<< Ana Sayfa