- Houston Astros jersey.
- Houston Astros: Colt .45
- Uploaded on Jun 7, 2011
- Throwback uniforms: Mets in
- faced the Houston Astros
- Majestic Houston Astros
- Photographs: Baseball
- Featured Product. Express Gear
- by BustaPozee on Jun 22, 2011
- uniforms,2011 MLB jerseys
- Nats uniforms 2011.jpg
- 1965-74 Houston Astros Uniform
- 7: The Houston Astros
- Houston Astros#39; Hunter Pence
- Craig Biggio Houston Astros
- Chris Johnson, Houston Astros.
- Ugly Houston Astros Uniform
- The 2011 Fan Choice Bobblehead
- Houston Astros Oswalt Baseball
images Featured Product. Express Gear
wallpaper Houston Astros jersey.
2011 Houston Astros: Colt .45
more...
more...
2010 Uploaded on Jun 7, 2011
more...
hair Throwback uniforms: Mets in
more...
hot faced the Houston Astros
more...
house Ugly Houston Astros Uniform
tattoo Majestic Houston Astros
more...
pictures Photographs: Baseball
dresses 1965-74 Houston Astros Uniform
more...
makeup by BustaPozee on Jun 22, 2011
girlfriend Houston Astros#39; Hunter Pence
hairstyles Nats uniforms 2011.jpg
Source URL: https://notgaptek.blogspot.com/2011/06/houston-astros-uniforms-2011.html
Visit not gaptek for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
Madhuri
04-13 01:08 PM
does the new EAD has start date, immidiately after the old EAD exipry date or you lost some days/months in the renewal process?
wallpaper Houston Astros jersey.
nixstor
05-15 02:50 PM
Called 5 Representatives and Senator Menendez. Will call the rest today evening.
Thanks for making these important calls.
Thanks for making these important calls.
Mr. Brown
09-29 04:39 PM
This post should be in a very prominent place (like About Us etc.) on this website.
The poster has not only made it abundantly clear about the reason for IV's existence but also made it plenty clear about what they have done and more importantly learnt in the past 5 years.
I have been visiting this site on/off for the past couple years and didn't know half of it.
We are spinning in circles here and it is like reinventing the wheel. This is THE grassroots org �THAT you want to set-up. already set up to achieve exactly that � YES, YES �We want Congress to introduce a bill to reduce backlogs. The core goal of IV is to have a bill that has our provisions. That is exactly what this organization was set up to achieve. You seem to be a newcomer to this struggle. Have you followed IV from 2005 Dec when a buch of members got together on some other forums and watched helplessly as good provisions (that were meant to allievate our troubles) were taken out at the last minute from a bill during debate.
Since then we have tried and tried and frankly have matured enough to understand that the politics of the immigration issue is complex and any standalone bill �just for us- has no chance.
Our provisions have to be clubbed with all the rest of the minor and major groups � that want reform. There is the nurses lobby, the doctors, the illegal lobby, the dream activists, and many other fringe groups, they all want their issues to be addressed. The anti-immigrants are a big opposition to any small relief that comes up in debate. NOW- We have learnt that we need to work with all these groups, form alliances and lobby hard to get a bill that has more support.
If you go meet with your lawmakers you will understand that our issue is a miniscule little piece of a bigger issue of Immigration. And different varying and sometimes opposing groups have to be accommodated. The politics of immigration is convulted with different factions of the society wanting different things � Our little issue is straightforward and we enjoy a lot more support for our provisions, unfortunately we were clearly told that we have to be clubbed with these other groups when it comes to seeking a bill for reform. We are being held hostage also by the Hispanic lobbyists, that feel that if smaller bills come up and are passed, there will be no apetite for their bigger issue of legalizing a big core of mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants.
FOR A RECAP- after this administration came into office �Jan 09- We had hopes and were promised that CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) will be taken up, if that fails then smaller bills will be allowed to be taken up. If you have watched the developments carefully �There was never a time and a lot of groups including IV lobbied and lobbied hard to be heard and to get a bill but- the legislative calendar with so much other priorities had no space for any immigration bill this year. After the healthcare bill, Nobody has had any energy for a big controversial bill.
Long story-short is YES, we want a bill (either clubbed with others) or amendments inserted into a bill- But have not been able to get it done.
The reason for this failure is us- IV Members. We have not met our lawmakers in the numbers that are important to make an impact. We have to do it every month- building pressure to get a positive sympathetic response. Now some members (including yours truly) have gone and met our respective lawmakers more than 6-8 times in the last year, but that is again not enough, that is just 20-25 odd members compared to total IV Strength of 40,000members. It has to be an ongoing effort, just like the dream activisits have done, they meet with lawmakers regularly, highlight their frustrations and are open to media �giving interviews and keeping their issue alive in the limelight.
IV has come up with specific recommendations for what we would like to see in a bill/s for our community. IV actively analyses any bill that comes up or has a chance to come up for debate. If you want to get your hands on that document, contact Anu or Pappu and ask for the IV_Advocacy package.
We do have a paid lobbying firm that represent our interests and educates lawmakers. This is not enough, because during debates lawmakers behave as if they do not have highly skilled immigrants in their constituency and so do not have to pay attention. This is mainly IV members fault, since we have not been able to visit lawmakers offices in the numbers that we should. Our members need to show up at lawmakers offices and educate them. Tell them you live in their constituency and represent IV so that when the lobbying firm does their work, they are paying attention and our voices are not ignored or drowned.
Individual members need to be open, honest, and courageous enough to talk to their lawmakers and media about issues we face. Just crying and debating on IV's website does not help. Talk about introducing a bill for us to your lawmakers � not here on IV.
The poster has not only made it abundantly clear about the reason for IV's existence but also made it plenty clear about what they have done and more importantly learnt in the past 5 years.
I have been visiting this site on/off for the past couple years and didn't know half of it.
We are spinning in circles here and it is like reinventing the wheel. This is THE grassroots org �THAT you want to set-up. already set up to achieve exactly that � YES, YES �We want Congress to introduce a bill to reduce backlogs. The core goal of IV is to have a bill that has our provisions. That is exactly what this organization was set up to achieve. You seem to be a newcomer to this struggle. Have you followed IV from 2005 Dec when a buch of members got together on some other forums and watched helplessly as good provisions (that were meant to allievate our troubles) were taken out at the last minute from a bill during debate.
Since then we have tried and tried and frankly have matured enough to understand that the politics of the immigration issue is complex and any standalone bill �just for us- has no chance.
Our provisions have to be clubbed with all the rest of the minor and major groups � that want reform. There is the nurses lobby, the doctors, the illegal lobby, the dream activists, and many other fringe groups, they all want their issues to be addressed. The anti-immigrants are a big opposition to any small relief that comes up in debate. NOW- We have learnt that we need to work with all these groups, form alliances and lobby hard to get a bill that has more support.
If you go meet with your lawmakers you will understand that our issue is a miniscule little piece of a bigger issue of Immigration. And different varying and sometimes opposing groups have to be accommodated. The politics of immigration is convulted with different factions of the society wanting different things � Our little issue is straightforward and we enjoy a lot more support for our provisions, unfortunately we were clearly told that we have to be clubbed with these other groups when it comes to seeking a bill for reform. We are being held hostage also by the Hispanic lobbyists, that feel that if smaller bills come up and are passed, there will be no apetite for their bigger issue of legalizing a big core of mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants.
FOR A RECAP- after this administration came into office �Jan 09- We had hopes and were promised that CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) will be taken up, if that fails then smaller bills will be allowed to be taken up. If you have watched the developments carefully �There was never a time and a lot of groups including IV lobbied and lobbied hard to be heard and to get a bill but- the legislative calendar with so much other priorities had no space for any immigration bill this year. After the healthcare bill, Nobody has had any energy for a big controversial bill.
Long story-short is YES, we want a bill (either clubbed with others) or amendments inserted into a bill- But have not been able to get it done.
The reason for this failure is us- IV Members. We have not met our lawmakers in the numbers that are important to make an impact. We have to do it every month- building pressure to get a positive sympathetic response. Now some members (including yours truly) have gone and met our respective lawmakers more than 6-8 times in the last year, but that is again not enough, that is just 20-25 odd members compared to total IV Strength of 40,000members. It has to be an ongoing effort, just like the dream activisits have done, they meet with lawmakers regularly, highlight their frustrations and are open to media �giving interviews and keeping their issue alive in the limelight.
IV has come up with specific recommendations for what we would like to see in a bill/s for our community. IV actively analyses any bill that comes up or has a chance to come up for debate. If you want to get your hands on that document, contact Anu or Pappu and ask for the IV_Advocacy package.
We do have a paid lobbying firm that represent our interests and educates lawmakers. This is not enough, because during debates lawmakers behave as if they do not have highly skilled immigrants in their constituency and so do not have to pay attention. This is mainly IV members fault, since we have not been able to visit lawmakers offices in the numbers that we should. Our members need to show up at lawmakers offices and educate them. Tell them you live in their constituency and represent IV so that when the lobbying firm does their work, they are paying attention and our voices are not ignored or drowned.
Individual members need to be open, honest, and courageous enough to talk to their lawmakers and media about issues we face. Just crying and debating on IV's website does not help. Talk about introducing a bill for us to your lawmakers � not here on IV.
2011 Houston Astros: Colt .45
silversurfer6969
05-16 02:47 PM
Its now posted on Greg Siskind's Blog.
Thank you Atty Siskind for your support!
Thank you Atty Siskind for your support!
more...
forever_waiting
01-12 04:10 PM
It is surprising (rather shocking) to see how a discussion on an EB bill (which might never see the light of day anyway) has degenerated into an oft-repeated rant on how IV does not represent EB3.
When I meet with my lawmaker's office (and when I again meet in Feb), I repeat the IV provisions which are for ALL EB and not any specific category/country. THe problem with EB3 is the with the way the EB system/inventory is set-up. It is stupid to convert a chronic issue into a "IV is not trying" debate. As always, we have lots of armchair critics and few grass-roots workers.
If you trust IV Core and its advisory board and believe that they know how politics works better than you and me you are entitled to your opinion and you may be right too. Certainly IV Core knows how political work, there is no denying that but my point of contention is that does what ICV Core believe and are working towards match with what is good for EB3?
And there as the bard would say lies the rub
Now again in response to that you and most of the people would agree that IV Core goals is good for EB3. Now out of all the people who agree how many are EB3 and how many are EB2. Again IV Core would say many EB3 agree with what they do because IV is not about helping anyone, IV is about helping yourselves (EB3 or EB2), and when it comes to the fact of helping ourselves i for one feel that IV core would do better to listen to the EB3 voice out there. Why do i feel EB3 specific voice is not being heard? Well the answer to that is very simple. It is because EB3 as a whole has NOT seen any benefit out of the rule changes which happened till now and any new initiative which gets the support of IV.
As to your statement about below
The idea you preferred has no chance, given the harsh economic situation and anti-immigration sentiment at this time
My commnts to that is that YES it is a harsh economic situation and YES anti immigrants sentiments is on the rise but if i am an an anti immigrant i would oppose immigrants as a whole. I would not oppose EB2 immigrants less because they have MS degrees and i would not oppose EB3 less because they are stuck in the immigration process and harsh economics time is harsh for everyone (EB2 and EB3) and also citizens so the same logic of anti immigranst sentiments would apply
Reagrding your another statement
In this case, EB3 will have to wait forever. Now, which one do you like? I think people should be realistic.
What i like is not what is important. What is important is what is done is the right thing., If it is the question of EB3 waiting fore ever (say 10 years) or EB3 waiting more than forever (say 20 years) i would plum for which ever option gives relief to people (even if it extends my GC wait time) who are of older priority date and who should get relief, not because they have waited for so long but because they waited for so long in the line and followed all the rules and it is just mind blowing that people who have applied for GC in 2008 and 2010 and expecting that they deserve to get GC because they are EB2 and no other reason.
Now to that all EB2 guys will reply back saying Are you nuts, that how the world works, if you want a GC sooner get a US degree or apply in EB2 no one is stopping you and all that kinds of statements. It gets ugly too but what everyone forgets is that it is easier to be sanctimonious and give advise when you are not being effected. When you are at the other end (Remember the bottom of the totem pole) that is when you all these things come back to bite you and you cannot justify what you said earlier.
Think about it illegals want GC for everyone illegal. Legals (including IV Core among others) say we are fighting for all EB and are united but when an EB2 with 2007 priority date gets GC but an EB3 32002 is still waiting all that argument falls by the wayside and there is no unity
Ok if IV Core (And when i say IV Core i mean everyone EB2 and EB3 peiople because IV Core is nothing but the EB applicants themselves) cannot or will not try to work towards fixing the dispension of spillover visas to EB2 and EB3 equally because that is the law and the law cannot change why cannot IV Core try to implement (the keyword here is TRY whether the law pases or not is not the point) the 55 K DV to all retrogressed applicants instead of just US MS applicants. They can try to do that but they are not. So in what way is IV a representative of EB3 apprehensions and issues
When I meet with my lawmaker's office (and when I again meet in Feb), I repeat the IV provisions which are for ALL EB and not any specific category/country. THe problem with EB3 is the with the way the EB system/inventory is set-up. It is stupid to convert a chronic issue into a "IV is not trying" debate. As always, we have lots of armchair critics and few grass-roots workers.
If you trust IV Core and its advisory board and believe that they know how politics works better than you and me you are entitled to your opinion and you may be right too. Certainly IV Core knows how political work, there is no denying that but my point of contention is that does what ICV Core believe and are working towards match with what is good for EB3?
And there as the bard would say lies the rub
Now again in response to that you and most of the people would agree that IV Core goals is good for EB3. Now out of all the people who agree how many are EB3 and how many are EB2. Again IV Core would say many EB3 agree with what they do because IV is not about helping anyone, IV is about helping yourselves (EB3 or EB2), and when it comes to the fact of helping ourselves i for one feel that IV core would do better to listen to the EB3 voice out there. Why do i feel EB3 specific voice is not being heard? Well the answer to that is very simple. It is because EB3 as a whole has NOT seen any benefit out of the rule changes which happened till now and any new initiative which gets the support of IV.
As to your statement about below
The idea you preferred has no chance, given the harsh economic situation and anti-immigration sentiment at this time
My commnts to that is that YES it is a harsh economic situation and YES anti immigrants sentiments is on the rise but if i am an an anti immigrant i would oppose immigrants as a whole. I would not oppose EB2 immigrants less because they have MS degrees and i would not oppose EB3 less because they are stuck in the immigration process and harsh economics time is harsh for everyone (EB2 and EB3) and also citizens so the same logic of anti immigranst sentiments would apply
Reagrding your another statement
In this case, EB3 will have to wait forever. Now, which one do you like? I think people should be realistic.
What i like is not what is important. What is important is what is done is the right thing., If it is the question of EB3 waiting fore ever (say 10 years) or EB3 waiting more than forever (say 20 years) i would plum for which ever option gives relief to people (even if it extends my GC wait time) who are of older priority date and who should get relief, not because they have waited for so long but because they waited for so long in the line and followed all the rules and it is just mind blowing that people who have applied for GC in 2008 and 2010 and expecting that they deserve to get GC because they are EB2 and no other reason.
Now to that all EB2 guys will reply back saying Are you nuts, that how the world works, if you want a GC sooner get a US degree or apply in EB2 no one is stopping you and all that kinds of statements. It gets ugly too but what everyone forgets is that it is easier to be sanctimonious and give advise when you are not being effected. When you are at the other end (Remember the bottom of the totem pole) that is when you all these things come back to bite you and you cannot justify what you said earlier.
Think about it illegals want GC for everyone illegal. Legals (including IV Core among others) say we are fighting for all EB and are united but when an EB2 with 2007 priority date gets GC but an EB3 32002 is still waiting all that argument falls by the wayside and there is no unity
Ok if IV Core (And when i say IV Core i mean everyone EB2 and EB3 peiople because IV Core is nothing but the EB applicants themselves) cannot or will not try to work towards fixing the dispension of spillover visas to EB2 and EB3 equally because that is the law and the law cannot change why cannot IV Core try to implement (the keyword here is TRY whether the law pases or not is not the point) the 55 K DV to all retrogressed applicants instead of just US MS applicants. They can try to do that but they are not. So in what way is IV a representative of EB3 apprehensions and issues
chi_shark
09-03 12:29 PM
I am a guy and have a question....Who is Hugh Hefner ?
did you misspell gay as guy? ha ha ha ha just joking.
did you misspell gay as guy? ha ha ha ha just joking.
more...
vdlrao
07-15 09:31 AM
We have an interview opportunity with a national TV channel. If you/anyone is interested, please contact Immigration voice.
Just want to put at the top of the page.
Just want to put at the top of the page.
2010 Uploaded on Jun 7, 2011
jchan
05-15 05:07 PM
What about H.R. 6039 ?[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Why are we not asking to support that bill too ? [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
I had similar question, this bill has the most co-sponsors, and probably the most viable one as well. Why don't we urge the congressman support this bill???[/SIZE]
Why are we not asking to support that bill too ? [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
I had similar question, this bill has the most co-sponsors, and probably the most viable one as well. Why don't we urge the congressman support this bill???[/SIZE]
more...
Ramba
09-25 10:41 PM
Can you post links to any official memo with regards to this change if you happen to find. This will clear the confusion. I do not think AC21 amendment changes anything specific to spill over visa allocation. Anyway.. I am trying to find the link to any official memo and will post if I find any
USCIS - I-Link Reference (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD&CH=act)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
USCIS - I-Link Reference (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD&CH=act)
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS-
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
hair Throwback uniforms: Mets in
mxh72c
07-14 10:31 PM
Mr East India is so EB2 intelligent that he does not hesitate to give a lecture to the dull EB3 guys. Here is a lecture to you from a lowly EB3 worker. He pompously states that it is the job requirements that classifies the job as EB2. But completely glosses over the facts that most of EB2 job certified as such, really do not require a mandatory Masters degree. This is where the slick lawyers come into play by tailoring the job as EB2. Most of the American colleagues of the so called EB2 advanced skill "inventor" do not have a Masters degree doing the same job. Also, most of the Masters required job ads are found especially in our nurturer of highly skilled programming "job shops".
more...
needhelp!
04-14 05:03 PM
As a start, I've decided to start walking in my office garage for half an hour before lunch.
hot faced the Houston Astros
pappu
04-18 10:08 AM
After doing a conference call this weekend, we think we should close this thread. There are not enough people for us to consider a large public campaign. However this does not mean IV is not and will not be working on this fix. This fix has been a very important fix for IV for several years and we have it in our legislative and admin fixes agenda. Those that came for the recent advocacy day event know that it is a key provision that relates to our quality of life concern. Every other legislative fix we are trying is also tied to I485 filing. We advocated for this fix in our just concluded advocacy days and will continue to do so in every opportunity we get. The purpose of this thread was misunderstood and people thought IV will only work on this fix if there are 5000 votes.
We were at the time of starting this thread considering a possibility of launching a campaign like http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/17157-deadline-march-1st-target-25000-letters-can-we-make-it-happen.html when the timing was right.
In past similar IV campiagns, some people even got responses like http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/18067-admin-fix-letter-response-from-cis-wh.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/18200-letter-from-uscis-after-sending-letter-to-president.html
For a campaign like that to succeed the number has to be way higher than what we achieved in 2008. Again just writing letters will not do anything. You need a big organization like IV behind it where we take all these letters with us for the meeting. We also need a strong ongoing advocacy effort in DC though lobbying.
Another point to be noted for all people wanting to file I485 is not to think narrowly about your own I485 application. It will be counter productive to your own cause and the overall effort we are trying to do. This also applies to people who have filed I485 and do not wish others to be able to file I485 because their own application might be delayed or some other reasons ( Here is one past example . Many posts on this thread and many such divisive threads are deleted because they were too offensive but you will get an idea http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum14-members-forum/2714-why-are-we-suddenly-obsessed-with-uscis-efficiency.html ) . We are going to adopt a zero tolerance policy to such people when we come across. People who think narrowly about their own I485 application and fail to understand the full picture of the EB backlog should not be part of this effort. It is better to not respond to such people and lose such people from this effort rather than trying to be all inclusive. We cannot waste our time to either keep such people happy or fight with them. If there are any such narrow minded people for or against this fix, they are free to cancel their recurring contributions and find their own ways to get their I485 fix done or oppose IV's I485 fix effort.
For people who have voted and want to work on this fix, please contact the leaders of this initiative ashwin_27 and starsun. There is a google group where most active members share their views. The entry to the google group is restricted and the leaders will have to speak to each interested person before permitting access. There will also be public action items posted in the coming weeks for everyone that has voted. These action items will also help you to raise awareness of this issue. We are closing this poll at this time so that there is no misunderstanding and people who have voted understand that there is more to getting this fix done than just voting and going away or complaining that nothing is happening.
The thread will be closed in a day or two.
We were at the time of starting this thread considering a possibility of launching a campaign like http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/17157-deadline-march-1st-target-25000-letters-can-we-make-it-happen.html when the timing was right.
In past similar IV campiagns, some people even got responses like http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/18067-admin-fix-letter-response-from-cis-wh.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/18200-letter-from-uscis-after-sending-letter-to-president.html
For a campaign like that to succeed the number has to be way higher than what we achieved in 2008. Again just writing letters will not do anything. You need a big organization like IV behind it where we take all these letters with us for the meeting. We also need a strong ongoing advocacy effort in DC though lobbying.
Another point to be noted for all people wanting to file I485 is not to think narrowly about your own I485 application. It will be counter productive to your own cause and the overall effort we are trying to do. This also applies to people who have filed I485 and do not wish others to be able to file I485 because their own application might be delayed or some other reasons ( Here is one past example . Many posts on this thread and many such divisive threads are deleted because they were too offensive but you will get an idea http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum14-members-forum/2714-why-are-we-suddenly-obsessed-with-uscis-efficiency.html ) . We are going to adopt a zero tolerance policy to such people when we come across. People who think narrowly about their own I485 application and fail to understand the full picture of the EB backlog should not be part of this effort. It is better to not respond to such people and lose such people from this effort rather than trying to be all inclusive. We cannot waste our time to either keep such people happy or fight with them. If there are any such narrow minded people for or against this fix, they are free to cancel their recurring contributions and find their own ways to get their I485 fix done or oppose IV's I485 fix effort.
For people who have voted and want to work on this fix, please contact the leaders of this initiative ashwin_27 and starsun. There is a google group where most active members share their views. The entry to the google group is restricted and the leaders will have to speak to each interested person before permitting access. There will also be public action items posted in the coming weeks for everyone that has voted. These action items will also help you to raise awareness of this issue. We are closing this poll at this time so that there is no misunderstanding and people who have voted understand that there is more to getting this fix done than just voting and going away or complaining that nothing is happening.
The thread will be closed in a day or two.
more...
house Ugly Houston Astros Uniform
masterji
08-03 02:42 PM
Ha ha ha ha :D:D:D:D
"masterji", your and my case are almost identical. I am also EB2I with PD in Nov 2005 filed at NSC. I also called USCIS and opened an SR yesterday. I also received "Card Production Ordered" for me and "Decision" for my wife today with the exact same text as yours. Are you my lost twin? :D:D:D
"masterji", your and my case are almost identical. I am also EB2I with PD in Nov 2005 filed at NSC. I also called USCIS and opened an SR yesterday. I also received "Card Production Ordered" for me and "Decision" for my wife today with the exact same text as yours. Are you my lost twin? :D:D:D
tattoo Majestic Houston Astros
camarasa
07-11 05:36 PM
This is the only escape route they have.
Nothing else would calm down all potential lawsuits.
What is? Working on the July submitted apps ahead of the ones already in the queue?
Nothing else would calm down all potential lawsuits.
What is? Working on the July submitted apps ahead of the ones already in the queue?
more...
pictures Photographs: Baseball
snathan
03-02 02:35 PM
I have booked the ticket for APR 03 - APR 06th and I need accommodation...
dresses 1965-74 Houston Astros Uniform
vlad0002
05-16 01:46 PM
For Indians we had vaccination in India at our childhood. Due to this some will get positive results in the skin test. Then doctor is going to recommends for chest x-ray. Some of the doctor's are going to overlook this. Because the medical report is a sealed cover we don�t know what number he written in the medical examination form. You can ask the doctor.
And one more thing is for skin test we have wait couple of days.
From my experience I recommend others to go for x-ray. In my case my immigration doctor, he written 5mm as reaction for skin test. USCIS sent RFE on this to go for x-ray.
I gone for x-ray and answered the RFE immediately.
A chest x-ray is required only if the reaction to the TB skin test is 5mm or greater.
http://www.usabal.com/permres/surgeons/index.html
My wife and I went for the medical examination 1.5 years ago, when we thought we'll be eligible to file shortly. We still have those sealed envelopes. However, the time passed and I understand we need to undergo the exam again for our June filing, correct?
The first time around my wife had a positive skin test (immunized in childhood) and negative Xray. Back then she was advised to never do the skin test again, as it'll always be positive. So, she'll need to go for an Xray this time. However, she is pregnant, and they don't Xray pregnant women... Is she an exempt then? There gotta be a provision for something like this, right?
Thanks.
Vlad
And one more thing is for skin test we have wait couple of days.
From my experience I recommend others to go for x-ray. In my case my immigration doctor, he written 5mm as reaction for skin test. USCIS sent RFE on this to go for x-ray.
I gone for x-ray and answered the RFE immediately.
A chest x-ray is required only if the reaction to the TB skin test is 5mm or greater.
http://www.usabal.com/permres/surgeons/index.html
My wife and I went for the medical examination 1.5 years ago, when we thought we'll be eligible to file shortly. We still have those sealed envelopes. However, the time passed and I understand we need to undergo the exam again for our June filing, correct?
The first time around my wife had a positive skin test (immunized in childhood) and negative Xray. Back then she was advised to never do the skin test again, as it'll always be positive. So, she'll need to go for an Xray this time. However, she is pregnant, and they don't Xray pregnant women... Is she an exempt then? There gotta be a provision for something like this, right?
Thanks.
Vlad
more...
makeup by BustaPozee on Jun 22, 2011
bushman06
01-04 05:14 PM
Took about 3 weeks. I submitted everything by courier to Houston CGI. I did not get any message saying that they had recieved the passport or that they had started; after 3 weeks the return courier just magically had my new passport.
girlfriend Houston Astros#39; Hunter Pence
vedicman
01-12 10:19 AM
Your input is good, goodintentions!
With my experience, it is best to meet with the staff members first and then send out emails.
With my experience, it is best to meet with the staff members first and then send out emails.
hairstyles Nats uniforms 2011.jpg
nyte_crawler
06-08 06:15 PM
Now that the House and Senate have adopted different versions of immigration legislation, textbook explanations of lawmaking suggest the bill's fate rests in the hands of a conference committee. Congress uses these temporary bicameral panels � which some call the "Third House" of Congress � to resolve differences in competing versions of legislation.
But lawmakers often find exceptions to textbook explanations and immigration reform provides a case in point. True, most predict contentious House-Senate negotiations on the issue. But "where" and "when" are key questions. Creation of a conference committee will be more an indication that a deal is done than a forum to find one. In other words, lawmakers may not even officially create a bicameral negotiating panel until they have found a clear path toward a workable compromise � a process that may take weeks of private, informal discussions before conferees ever formally meet.
Conference committees are not mandatory. They offer one way to resolve differences between chambers, but there is no requirement that lawmakers even use this procedure. According to Walter Oleszek at the CongressionalResearch Service, only 15 to 25 percent of all laws passed by Congress ever reach the conference-committee stage. Lawmakers normally resolve differences either by one house adopting the other's version or by "ping-ponging" measures back and forth until substantive disagreements are ironed out. Conference committees are never formed in either of those cases.
However, Mr. Oleszek also notes that most controversial bills that become law do go through the House-Senate conference process. Immigration definitely clears the divisiveness threshold. But sending a politically charged bill to a formal conference immediately and hoping differences get resolved there is not a tactic preferred by the GOP leadership.
When lawmakers do decide to form a formal conference committee, its procedures are exercised in congressional discretion with only a few set rules and precedents. The House and Senate each choose members drawn heavily from the committees that authored the legislation. In the Senate, the presiding officer appoints from a list developed by the chair and ranking member of the committee that passed the bill. In the House, the speaker appoints all conferees and sometimes draws in members of the leadership. Each house has one vote on issues under consideration in the conference; therefore there is a "House position" and a "Senate position" on any provision in disagreement. Each chamber develops positions based on a majority vote of conferees from that body.
Neither chamber is under any obligation to respond to a request for a conference. And sometimes the bulk of negotiations occur in a pre-conference informal setting. House leaders are averse to sending major legislation to a formal conference with the prospects of long, drawn-out deliberations. For one thing, after a bill goes to conference and there is no resolution in 20 calendar and 10 legislative days, any member of the House can offer non-binding motions on a daily basis, which often subjects the body to tedious, sometimes politically embarrassing votes that eat up valuable time.
Democrat obstructionism in the Senate may also stall efforts to convene a conference. Since losing the majority after the 2002 election, Democrats have made the historically routine process of going to conference (which is normally done through unanimous consent) a procedural jungle. On the immigration measure, Democrats insisted on the unusual step of a pre-agreed ratio of conferees (26 senators total � 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats) before entering into a unanimous consent agreement to finish the bill. Also, because the Senate bill contains a revenue provision, it is subject to a so-called "blue slip," which means it could be automatically rejected by the House. (The Origination Clause of the Constitution requires all revenue measures to begin in the House. A Senate bill containing revenue provisions is sent back with a resolution printed on blue paper, hence the name.) Democrats then objected earlier this week to efforts to attach the Senate immigration bill to a House-passed revenue bill, which would have fixed the problem.
And when it comes to national issues like immigration, the White House also becomes a big investor in this legislative real estate. Thus, the real "conference committee" on immigration reform will take place informally between the White House and a handful of congressional leaders. If these lawmakers see a compromise that can garner strong support among Republicans in the House and Senate, a formal conference will be appointed.
If this path can't be found, it's unlikely lawmakers will ever formally set foot into a conference committee to orchestrate a compromise � in public or private.
But lawmakers often find exceptions to textbook explanations and immigration reform provides a case in point. True, most predict contentious House-Senate negotiations on the issue. But "where" and "when" are key questions. Creation of a conference committee will be more an indication that a deal is done than a forum to find one. In other words, lawmakers may not even officially create a bicameral negotiating panel until they have found a clear path toward a workable compromise � a process that may take weeks of private, informal discussions before conferees ever formally meet.
Conference committees are not mandatory. They offer one way to resolve differences between chambers, but there is no requirement that lawmakers even use this procedure. According to Walter Oleszek at the CongressionalResearch Service, only 15 to 25 percent of all laws passed by Congress ever reach the conference-committee stage. Lawmakers normally resolve differences either by one house adopting the other's version or by "ping-ponging" measures back and forth until substantive disagreements are ironed out. Conference committees are never formed in either of those cases.
However, Mr. Oleszek also notes that most controversial bills that become law do go through the House-Senate conference process. Immigration definitely clears the divisiveness threshold. But sending a politically charged bill to a formal conference immediately and hoping differences get resolved there is not a tactic preferred by the GOP leadership.
When lawmakers do decide to form a formal conference committee, its procedures are exercised in congressional discretion with only a few set rules and precedents. The House and Senate each choose members drawn heavily from the committees that authored the legislation. In the Senate, the presiding officer appoints from a list developed by the chair and ranking member of the committee that passed the bill. In the House, the speaker appoints all conferees and sometimes draws in members of the leadership. Each house has one vote on issues under consideration in the conference; therefore there is a "House position" and a "Senate position" on any provision in disagreement. Each chamber develops positions based on a majority vote of conferees from that body.
Neither chamber is under any obligation to respond to a request for a conference. And sometimes the bulk of negotiations occur in a pre-conference informal setting. House leaders are averse to sending major legislation to a formal conference with the prospects of long, drawn-out deliberations. For one thing, after a bill goes to conference and there is no resolution in 20 calendar and 10 legislative days, any member of the House can offer non-binding motions on a daily basis, which often subjects the body to tedious, sometimes politically embarrassing votes that eat up valuable time.
Democrat obstructionism in the Senate may also stall efforts to convene a conference. Since losing the majority after the 2002 election, Democrats have made the historically routine process of going to conference (which is normally done through unanimous consent) a procedural jungle. On the immigration measure, Democrats insisted on the unusual step of a pre-agreed ratio of conferees (26 senators total � 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats) before entering into a unanimous consent agreement to finish the bill. Also, because the Senate bill contains a revenue provision, it is subject to a so-called "blue slip," which means it could be automatically rejected by the House. (The Origination Clause of the Constitution requires all revenue measures to begin in the House. A Senate bill containing revenue provisions is sent back with a resolution printed on blue paper, hence the name.) Democrats then objected earlier this week to efforts to attach the Senate immigration bill to a House-passed revenue bill, which would have fixed the problem.
And when it comes to national issues like immigration, the White House also becomes a big investor in this legislative real estate. Thus, the real "conference committee" on immigration reform will take place informally between the White House and a handful of congressional leaders. If these lawmakers see a compromise that can garner strong support among Republicans in the House and Senate, a formal conference will be appointed.
If this path can't be found, it's unlikely lawmakers will ever formally set foot into a conference committee to orchestrate a compromise � in public or private.
gimmeacard
08-05 12:46 AM
So no approvals for any EB3?
I have been waiting for the past 9+ years.....
PD : December 26th, 2001
RD : September 13th,2007
LUD: September 19th,2009
Category : EB3
Service Center : TSC (Texas)
so i am curious why did you wait that long knowing that EB3 train is a goods train w/o engine. You r pretty close now to your GC, however if 3 yrs back or so you had ported it to EB2, you wud had been greened way back.
I have been waiting for the past 9+ years.....
PD : December 26th, 2001
RD : September 13th,2007
LUD: September 19th,2009
Category : EB3
Service Center : TSC (Texas)
so i am curious why did you wait that long knowing that EB3 train is a goods train w/o engine. You r pretty close now to your GC, however if 3 yrs back or so you had ported it to EB2, you wud had been greened way back.
ameryki
05-26 01:43 PM
EAD Paper mailed on 5/8 to Phoenix Lockbox.
Received on 5/10 as per the tracking number by Phoenix Lockbox.
No receipt notice or the cheques were not encashed. Called the National Service Center and was told to wait 30 days to get the receipt notice. :mad: is anyone in similar situation.
probably should've gone efile route mate. I efiled for my wife on May 17th and received confirmation on May 21st and was able to add the file number to my tracking portfolio the day after efiling.
Received on 5/10 as per the tracking number by Phoenix Lockbox.
No receipt notice or the cheques were not encashed. Called the National Service Center and was told to wait 30 days to get the receipt notice. :mad: is anyone in similar situation.
probably should've gone efile route mate. I efiled for my wife on May 17th and received confirmation on May 21st and was able to add the file number to my tracking portfolio the day after efiling.
Source URL: https://notgaptek.blogspot.com/2011/06/houston-astros-uniforms-2011.html
Visit not gaptek for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
No comments:
Post a Comment