immi_2006
05-20 05:36 PM
I sent my 485 to NSC in July 2007 and got the receipt from NSC after 2 months. I filed my wifes 485 in first week of August 2007 to NSC but got the receipt from TSC. We live in Texas but our employer was from NJ when i applied 485. After that we have been applying for EAD and AP regulary at respective service centers with out any issues.
1. Has any one been in this situation and got their GC approved?
2. Do i need to request my wife's application to be moved to NSC if that can be done?
I am few days short of getting current and hope this doesn't delay approving our cases.
1. Has any one been in this situation and got their GC approved?
2. Do i need to request my wife's application to be moved to NSC if that can be done?
I am few days short of getting current and hope this doesn't delay approving our cases.
wallpaper Hair Color Idea - Red Violet
Macaca
10-28 09:52 AM
It's time we seriously ponder fixing the Constitution (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/28/INCHSUV9I.DTL&hw=immigration&sn=008&sc=247) By Larry J. Sabato | San Francisco Chronicle, October 28, 2007
Professor Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" (Walker & Company, 2007). He is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
What is the undisturbed and unaddressed source of many of the nation's current difficulties? It's the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution has become a secularly sacred document, as though God handed it to Moses in a third tablet on the Mount. The 2008 presidential candidates have been offering us prescriptions for everything from Iraq to health care over the past several months. But here is the problem: Their fixes are situational and incremental. In the meantime, underlying structural problems with America's governmental and political system are preventing us from solving our most intractable challenges.
If progress as a society is to be made, it is time for elemental change. The last place we look to understand why the U.S. system isn't working well anymore - the Constitution - should be the first place. A careful look at constitutional reform should begin now and culminate in a new Constitutional Convention.
Does this sound radical? If so, then the framers were radicals, too. They would be both disappointed and amazed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments they could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787. Urging his future countrymen to take advantage of their own experiences with government, George Washington declared, "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
Thomas Jefferson insisted that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years," the length of a generation in Jefferson's time.
The overall design of the Constitution remains brilliant and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation to a 21st century world unimaginable to the framers.
Let's explore a few: More than 14 million U.S. citizens are automatically and irrevocably barred from holding the office of president simply because they were not born in the United States - either they are immigrants or their U.S. mothers gave birth to them while outside U.S. territory. This exclusion creates a noxious form of second-class citizenship. The requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen" should be replaced with a condition that a candidate must be a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years before election to the presidency.
Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue U.S. military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops.
If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population. This small-state stranglehold is not merely a bump in the road; it is a massive roadblock to fairness that can, and often does, stop all progressive traffic. We should give each of the 10 most populated states two additional Senate seats and give each of the next 15 most populated states one additional seat. Sparsely populated states will still be disproportionately represented, but the ridiculous tilt to them in today's system can be a thing of the past.
If someone purposefully tried to conjure up the most random and illogical method of nominating presidential candidates, the resulting system would probably look much as ours does today. The incoherent lineup of primaries and caucuses forces candidates to campaign at least a year before the first nomination contest so they can become known nationwide and raise the money needed to compete. Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states; the regions would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. A U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on Jan. 1 of the presidential election year, would determine the order of regional events. The new system would add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year while also shortening the campaign: No one would know in which region the contest would begin until New Year's Day.
Excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court - so much so that had the framers realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day. A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This all is just a mere scratch on the surface in identifying long-overdue constitutional reforms. There are dozens of other worthy proposals than can and ought to be discussed, if we but have the will to imagine a better Constitution. No rational person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of thorough-going work. But let's at least start the discussion, and begin thinking about the generation-long process that could lead to a new constitutional convention sometime this century.
Professor Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" (Walker & Company, 2007). He is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
What is the undisturbed and unaddressed source of many of the nation's current difficulties? It's the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution has become a secularly sacred document, as though God handed it to Moses in a third tablet on the Mount. The 2008 presidential candidates have been offering us prescriptions for everything from Iraq to health care over the past several months. But here is the problem: Their fixes are situational and incremental. In the meantime, underlying structural problems with America's governmental and political system are preventing us from solving our most intractable challenges.
If progress as a society is to be made, it is time for elemental change. The last place we look to understand why the U.S. system isn't working well anymore - the Constitution - should be the first place. A careful look at constitutional reform should begin now and culminate in a new Constitutional Convention.
Does this sound radical? If so, then the framers were radicals, too. They would be both disappointed and amazed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments they could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787. Urging his future countrymen to take advantage of their own experiences with government, George Washington declared, "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
Thomas Jefferson insisted that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years," the length of a generation in Jefferson's time.
The overall design of the Constitution remains brilliant and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation to a 21st century world unimaginable to the framers.
Let's explore a few: More than 14 million U.S. citizens are automatically and irrevocably barred from holding the office of president simply because they were not born in the United States - either they are immigrants or their U.S. mothers gave birth to them while outside U.S. territory. This exclusion creates a noxious form of second-class citizenship. The requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen" should be replaced with a condition that a candidate must be a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years before election to the presidency.
Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue U.S. military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops.
If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population. This small-state stranglehold is not merely a bump in the road; it is a massive roadblock to fairness that can, and often does, stop all progressive traffic. We should give each of the 10 most populated states two additional Senate seats and give each of the next 15 most populated states one additional seat. Sparsely populated states will still be disproportionately represented, but the ridiculous tilt to them in today's system can be a thing of the past.
If someone purposefully tried to conjure up the most random and illogical method of nominating presidential candidates, the resulting system would probably look much as ours does today. The incoherent lineup of primaries and caucuses forces candidates to campaign at least a year before the first nomination contest so they can become known nationwide and raise the money needed to compete. Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states; the regions would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. A U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on Jan. 1 of the presidential election year, would determine the order of regional events. The new system would add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year while also shortening the campaign: No one would know in which region the contest would begin until New Year's Day.
Excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court - so much so that had the framers realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day. A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This all is just a mere scratch on the surface in identifying long-overdue constitutional reforms. There are dozens of other worthy proposals than can and ought to be discussed, if we but have the will to imagine a better Constitution. No rational person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of thorough-going work. But let's at least start the discussion, and begin thinking about the generation-long process that could lead to a new constitutional convention sometime this century.
transpass
11-13 04:19 PM
All those antis who are really xenophobic can hardly understand the contributions of immigrants to American society...Especially organizations like programmer's guild who are against H1B...Open your eyes and check the following interesting link...
Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry demo SixthSense | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html)
Here is the bio...
Pranav Mistry (http://www.pranavmistry.com/)
The dude has been cranking out research papers, has bunch of patents and BTW, would be an H1B. Every univ gets fed funding one way or the other. Does it mean the dude cannot be hired by a US univ? Otherwise, he is gonna take all that stuff back home...Do you see Mr. chuck grassley,what you are doing? Open your eyes, ron hira and guild fellas...:D
Agreed, not every H1 is a genius, but every H1 is an immigrant who works his/her ass off, everyday contributing to americans' social security, medicare funds...
Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry demo SixthSense | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html)
Here is the bio...
Pranav Mistry (http://www.pranavmistry.com/)
The dude has been cranking out research papers, has bunch of patents and BTW, would be an H1B. Every univ gets fed funding one way or the other. Does it mean the dude cannot be hired by a US univ? Otherwise, he is gonna take all that stuff back home...Do you see Mr. chuck grassley,what you are doing? Open your eyes, ron hira and guild fellas...:D
Agreed, not every H1 is a genius, but every H1 is an immigrant who works his/her ass off, everyday contributing to americans' social security, medicare funds...
2011 any hair color - blonde,
Blog Feeds
09-13 05:10 AM
Reuters talks to Pakistani tennis star Aisam ul-Haq, who made it to the men's doubles finals of the US Open this week about his immigration problems entering the US. He seems to maintain a positive attitude despite being regularly grilled by US immigration officials. Of course, he'll need some luck getting an O-1 or EB-1 approval since he didn't actually WIN the US Open. But that's another rant for another day.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/champion-tennis-player-regularly-subjected-to-grilling-at-us-ports-of-entry.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/champion-tennis-player-regularly-subjected-to-grilling-at-us-ports-of-entry.html)
more...
sch_dude
11-03 08:11 AM
Folks
I have applied for GC in Aug '07. I recently renewed my H1-B (7th year). I noticed that there is a mistake in the A# of my Green card application (Beneficiary #) on the H1-B approval notice.
Has any one else had this happen? Does any one know what can be done regarding this?
Thanks for your help
I have applied for GC in Aug '07. I recently renewed my H1-B (7th year). I noticed that there is a mistake in the A# of my Green card application (Beneficiary #) on the H1-B approval notice.
Has any one else had this happen? Does any one know what can be done regarding this?
Thanks for your help
RahSaj
09-21 08:47 AM
My 485 is currently pending from current employer.Getting a new offer from the client for full time job. My labor certification wage is very high around 95k(no benefits) and the new offer is for 80k with benefits. Doing the math the new offer is lucrative. With Current employer paying $1100/month for insurance and with zero vacation time.
Is it recommended to use AC21 and take the new offer even though the salary is less than 15k from labor certification wage. The Job responsibilities are similar.
Is it recommended to use AC21 and take the new offer even though the salary is less than 15k from labor certification wage. The Job responsibilities are similar.
more...
dpsg
02-26 08:32 PM
Guys I missed the conference call , But interested to know what happened &
if some key decisions made.
Called IV, But the person who answered was busy answering similar questions from other member.We don't want to waste precious time of IV leaders by calling indvidualy.
If someone who attended can summarize for the benifit of those who missed, It would be great.
Also does members of other nationalities(non Indians) also attended the conference call.. Hopefully IV is striving to become voice of all EB GC aspirants. Everyone will gain from joint effort and IV will have resources to do meaningful things.
great jobs guys .. wish you all the best.
if some key decisions made.
Called IV, But the person who answered was busy answering similar questions from other member.We don't want to waste precious time of IV leaders by calling indvidualy.
If someone who attended can summarize for the benifit of those who missed, It would be great.
Also does members of other nationalities(non Indians) also attended the conference call.. Hopefully IV is striving to become voice of all EB GC aspirants. Everyone will gain from joint effort and IV will have resources to do meaningful things.
great jobs guys .. wish you all the best.
2010 hair color red green blue
Blog Feeds
01-15 11:20 AM
It's not official, but it sounds like the Obama Administration is getting ready to make some news. Secretary Clinton told CBS News today: �Well, we have, as you know, many Haitian Americans. Most are here legally. Some are not documented. And the Obama administration is taking steps to make sure that people are given some temporary status so that we don�t compound the problem that we face in Haiti.� That sounds like Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced Departure.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/clinton-hints-that-white-house-will-grant-haitians-legal-status.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/clinton-hints-that-white-house-will-grant-haitians-legal-status.html)
more...
a_paradkar
10-05 01:07 PM
I heard from my collegue that if your company is doing Lay Off's, then your 485 processing stops automatically.
is that true? can anybody confirm it.
My PD is Aug 2005, I40 Approved and 485 was filed in Set 2005.
Thanks
is that true? can anybody confirm it.
My PD is Aug 2005, I40 Approved and 485 was filed in Set 2005.
Thanks
hair Natural hair color depends on
Exothika
10-08 09:42 PM
I have a frame on my main Window.xaml, when I click a link on the main Window, a Page.xaml page should appear. Only when I click the link, the page should load, but the page like auto runs without even displaying the main window. The main Window disappears in a flash and the Page.xaml appears. What should I do??
Between, I use MS Expression Blend & C# for the development of my application.
Between, I use MS Expression Blend & C# for the development of my application.
more...
bond65
05-24 01:47 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hot dark red hair (77)
immique
06-26 09:48 PM
I applied for extension of stay to California Sercice Center. But if I move to Texas, will be my case transfered to VSC??
Lelica
if it is an extension of B2 status, I don't think your case will be transferred to a different center if you move to a different state. you just have to inform the service center regarding change of address(I think you can send a AR-11 form) this is just my personal opinion. please check with the lawyer who filed your extension or other experts
Lelica
if it is an extension of B2 status, I don't think your case will be transferred to a different center if you move to a different state. you just have to inform the service center regarding change of address(I think you can send a AR-11 form) this is just my personal opinion. please check with the lawyer who filed your extension or other experts
more...
house red hair color - red
Blog Feeds
05-27 12:40 PM
As everybody knows by now, recently Arizona's Governor signed a law requiring local law enforcement officials to take into custody persons when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that they are present in the U.S. illegally. The person would be turned over to the Immigration Service, and be released from jail if they could demonstrate their legal status. Last Monday, the ACLU and various other groups sued Arizona officials in Federal Court to void the law on a number of grounds including violation of the Constitutional rights of equal protection of the law and free speech. President Obama has questioned the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/05/liberty-and-justice-for-all.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/05/liberty-and-justice-for-all.html)
tattoo With her new hair color
nonimmi
01-28 01:56 PM
Consider a consultant-only company where all employee work on client projects and all got EAD and can change employer anytime they want. What happens if everyone leave the company after 180 days and you (and few other) still continue. As this will have great impact on company balance sheet how this may effect final GC approval of those still continue? Most of us will have to wait 3-4 years before we get GC approved. Can it cause any problem or RFE? Or I-140 approval must be enough to show that employer is able to support the employee after GC approval. Just a thought.
more...
pictures Dark Red Hair Color Ideas. by
nkhandelwal
01-06 05:52 AM
HI,
Following is my case details -
Visa and I94 expiration date: 12 Sep 2009
Filed H1 extension: 11 Sep 2009
Extension denied: 18 Nov 2009
Left US: 15 Dec 2009
Refiled H1 Visa: 15 Dec 2009
Visa apporoved: 22 Dec 2009
What should my answer for following question in DS-156 as I left US within 30 days of receiving the denial letter?
Have you ever violated the terms of a U.S. visa, or been unlawfully present in, or deported from, the United States?
Thanks,
Naveen
Following is my case details -
Visa and I94 expiration date: 12 Sep 2009
Filed H1 extension: 11 Sep 2009
Extension denied: 18 Nov 2009
Left US: 15 Dec 2009
Refiled H1 Visa: 15 Dec 2009
Visa apporoved: 22 Dec 2009
What should my answer for following question in DS-156 as I left US within 30 days of receiving the denial letter?
Have you ever violated the terms of a U.S. visa, or been unlawfully present in, or deported from, the United States?
Thanks,
Naveen
dresses reddish orange hair color.
Arsen2
03-30 06:15 PM
Hello!
App needs to be run even if there are no permissions for installing or writing on hard disc. So, is it possible to use ActiveX controls and dynamic libraries without installing an application and without temporary run-time extractions, by simply running EXE file?
Thank you!
App needs to be run even if there are no permissions for installing or writing on hard disc. So, is it possible to use ActiveX controls and dynamic libraries without installing an application and without temporary run-time extractions, by simply running EXE file?
Thank you!
more...
makeup red hair color samples. red
vls
07-24 03:44 PM
If we lose our job after having the I-485 pending for more than 8 months, I-140 approved, how much time do we have to find another job?
Do we have to immediately withdraw the petition after losing/quiting a job?
Thanks!
Do we have to immediately withdraw the petition after losing/quiting a job?
Thanks!
girlfriend Hair Color Trends 2011
ad_325
08-25 05:54 PM
Hi Experts,
Would appreciate your help here. My sister is studying on H4 visa and her husband applied for I-140 in EB1 but it got rejected and now they have filed appeal for the same. He has his I-140 approved for NIW already though. Currently, My sister wants to move from H4 to F1 Visa as NIW case will take a lot of time and EB1 case has less chance of getting approved. Is there any problem in doing so ? Will having approved I-140 for NIW or pending appeal case affect her F1 application ?
Would really appreciate your help here !.
Thanks
Would appreciate your help here. My sister is studying on H4 visa and her husband applied for I-140 in EB1 but it got rejected and now they have filed appeal for the same. He has his I-140 approved for NIW already though. Currently, My sister wants to move from H4 to F1 Visa as NIW case will take a lot of time and EB1 case has less chance of getting approved. Is there any problem in doing so ? Will having approved I-140 for NIW or pending appeal case affect her F1 application ?
Would really appreciate your help here !.
Thanks
hairstyles Similar Hair Color#39;s to
Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Bogdan
07-03 07:52 PM
Hi,
Based on what I know, the medical exam has to be less than 1 year old on the date of I-485 application submission. However, I have seen different opinions on this forum. Some state that the exam date cannot be more than 30 days before I-485 submission, because the HIV test and syphyllis test (sorry if not typed correctly) are valid for 30 days only. Could anyone clarify this, please?
Thanks in advance.
Bogdan
Based on what I know, the medical exam has to be less than 1 year old on the date of I-485 application submission. However, I have seen different opinions on this forum. Some state that the exam date cannot be more than 30 days before I-485 submission, because the HIV test and syphyllis test (sorry if not typed correctly) are valid for 30 days only. Could anyone clarify this, please?
Thanks in advance.
Bogdan
bharani
04-28 03:42 PM
On April 26, 2009 (Sunday), I had a LUD on my current H1. This seemed strange to me. Applied for 485/EAD/AP during July fiasco. My priority date is March, 2006 (EB2-India).
Did anyone who is in similar situation as me have a LUD? Please ignore this post if this has been discussed earlier.
Did anyone who is in similar situation as me have a LUD? Please ignore this post if this has been discussed earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment