shana04
08-15 04:55 AM
No I havent got my GC yet.
Good, so many of IVans are missing you buddy. ;)
Good, so many of IVans are missing you buddy. ;)
wallpaper 1/200 A321
dbevis
December 5th, 2003, 11:13 PM
Could you put a link up to that plug in? I really like that.
I was playing around with it again tonight - I posted a couple more examples in the gallery area, under "landscapes".
This is not a plugin, persay. It's a PaintShop Pro script - not PhotoShop. Here's what the script does:
Split to RGB, discard G & B
"Clarify" (twice) at a high value to deepen the contrast range.
Adjusts the luminance channel to further enhance contrast.
Colorizes the image with a hue value of 160 and saturation a low setting of 20 to slightly shift grays towards blues.
I then added the original full-color image in as a layer and merged the two with partial opacity in (I think) "hue" mode.
The Clarify operation gives it an "old" look by accentuating and muddling the contrast. The lumininance adjustment makes the overall appearance more 'harsh'. The shift towards blue tends to simulate a bit of fading (like an old snaphot, I guess).
The painting-like effect comes from merging in the colors from the original.
Here's the actual script file (it's in the "Python" programming language):
--------------------------------------
from JascApp import *
def ScriptProperties():
return {
'Author': '',
'Copyright': '',
'Description': '',
'Host': 'Paint Shop Pro',
'Host Version': '8.00'
}
def Do(Environment):
App.Do( Environment, 'SplitToRGB', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'FileClose', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Silent,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'FileClose', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Silent,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Clarify', {
'Strength': 4,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Clarify', {
'Strength': 4,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'HistogramAdjustment', {
'LuminanceChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 245,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': 0.01,
'LowClipLimit': 2,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': 0.01,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'RedChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'GreenChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'BlueChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'TargetChannel': 0,
'OverlayResultHistogram': App.Constants.Boolean.true,
'HistogramEditMode': App.Constants.HistogramEditMode.Luminance,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'IncreaseColorsTo16Million', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Colorize', {
'Hue': 160,
'Saturation': 20,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
I was playing around with it again tonight - I posted a couple more examples in the gallery area, under "landscapes".
This is not a plugin, persay. It's a PaintShop Pro script - not PhotoShop. Here's what the script does:
Split to RGB, discard G & B
"Clarify" (twice) at a high value to deepen the contrast range.
Adjusts the luminance channel to further enhance contrast.
Colorizes the image with a hue value of 160 and saturation a low setting of 20 to slightly shift grays towards blues.
I then added the original full-color image in as a layer and merged the two with partial opacity in (I think) "hue" mode.
The Clarify operation gives it an "old" look by accentuating and muddling the contrast. The lumininance adjustment makes the overall appearance more 'harsh'. The shift towards blue tends to simulate a bit of fading (like an old snaphot, I guess).
The painting-like effect comes from merging in the colors from the original.
Here's the actual script file (it's in the "Python" programming language):
--------------------------------------
from JascApp import *
def ScriptProperties():
return {
'Author': '',
'Copyright': '',
'Description': '',
'Host': 'Paint Shop Pro',
'Host Version': '8.00'
}
def Do(Environment):
App.Do( Environment, 'SplitToRGB', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'FileClose', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Silent,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'FileClose', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Silent,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'SelectDocument', {
'SelectedImage': 0,
'Strict': App.Constants.Boolean.false,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Clarify', {
'Strength': 4,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Clarify', {
'Strength': 4,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'HistogramAdjustment', {
'LuminanceChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 245,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': 0.01,
'LowClipLimit': 2,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': 0.01,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'RedChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'GreenChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'BlueChannel': {
'Appearance': 0,
'Gamma': 1,
'HighClipLimit': 255,
'HighClipLimitPercentage': None,
'LowClipLimit': 0,
'LowClipLimitPercentage': None,
'MaxOutput': 255,
'MinOutput': 0
},
'TargetChannel': 0,
'OverlayResultHistogram': App.Constants.Boolean.true,
'HistogramEditMode': App.Constants.HistogramEditMode.Luminance,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'IncreaseColorsTo16Million', {
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
App.Do( Environment, 'Colorize', {
'Hue': 160,
'Saturation': 20,
'GeneralSettings': {
'ExecutionMode': App.Constants.ExecutionMode.Default,
'AutoActionMode': App.Constants.AutoActionMode.Match
}
})
chi_shark
09-09 03:45 PM
This issue must have been beaten to death already... I do not think that you have to be a permanent resident or Citizen in USCIS terms for doing S-Corp. The requirement is stated in a negative fashion in the code. I mean that the code lists what cannot be instead of what should be. And I think it means that a s-corp shareholder cannot be a non-resident alien. Thats it. I am on EAD and I have an S-Corp (i dont do IT with that company). I have a full time IT job and run the company part time...
I would have liked to do LLC except that it is more expensive to set it up compared to corp. there are record keeping requirements on corp... but if you are a good CEO, you will keep records for any company... no matter what legal style of organization.
The only operational benefit of S-corp or llc is the pass through taxation... i.e. income is taxed only once... c-corp has to be taxed on profits... on the flip side, however, you may potentially have a company that does very little business in the first year and hence very little profits or taxes... you could give yourself a handsome (but reasonable) salary and hence declare loss or zero profits... there are ways..
finally, I recommend spending the extra time, money, effort to read a few books (like "Inc yourself") and subscribe to inc magazine, entrepreneur magazine to do all legal and accounting stuff yourself in the first 1 2 years... you will learn a lot! on the other hand if you are starting with large capital base, then you can probably hire everyone right off the bat! (you probably would not have come here if you had plenty of money to hire everyone)
Please don't give incorrect answers.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
I would have liked to do LLC except that it is more expensive to set it up compared to corp. there are record keeping requirements on corp... but if you are a good CEO, you will keep records for any company... no matter what legal style of organization.
The only operational benefit of S-corp or llc is the pass through taxation... i.e. income is taxed only once... c-corp has to be taxed on profits... on the flip side, however, you may potentially have a company that does very little business in the first year and hence very little profits or taxes... you could give yourself a handsome (but reasonable) salary and hence declare loss or zero profits... there are ways..
finally, I recommend spending the extra time, money, effort to read a few books (like "Inc yourself") and subscribe to inc magazine, entrepreneur magazine to do all legal and accounting stuff yourself in the first 1 2 years... you will learn a lot! on the other hand if you are starting with large capital base, then you can probably hire everyone right off the bat! (you probably would not have come here if you had plenty of money to hire everyone)
Please don't give incorrect answers.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
2011 A321が就航時には、このA321就航
gimmemygreen
10-12 12:59 PM
Fox recruiting Lou Dobbs for war on Obama administration? | ChattahBox News Blog (http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/10/12/fox-recruiting-lou-dobbs-for-war-on-obama-administration/)
more...
cox
June 6th, 2005, 09:58 PM
I found a photo from cox on this forum that has a similar light condition.
<Blush> Thanks, Kevin. Skagitswimmer, I often can't use Kevin's technique of getting close, since I am shooting animals most of the time, and they run/fly/swim away. I do something similar though.
If you use the center spot metering mode (the single dot on Canon products), and then pick a subject that is close to you and has a similar albedo (reflectivity/color) as your intended target, you can get a sanity check on exposure. Then take the meter of the real subject, making sure you're not too far off. Then shoot. Then bracket it, a stop up, shoot, and a stop down, shoot. If you're shooting RAW, this will give you enough coverage, and you WILL get the shot since you can adjust exposure again in PS or DPP or whatever you use.
You can get about six stops of range in three frames for a few clicks of a wheel, and that ain't bad. If you're using aperture priority (as I usually am to control DoF) or shutter priority, it's a quick couple of clicks to make the adjustments, and worth the effort. If you're shooting manual, it's a little more effort to decide what to change, but still do-able with stationary subjects. Let us know if these suggestions work for you, or if you come up with a different technique that works better for you. :)
Good Luck!
<Blush> Thanks, Kevin. Skagitswimmer, I often can't use Kevin's technique of getting close, since I am shooting animals most of the time, and they run/fly/swim away. I do something similar though.
If you use the center spot metering mode (the single dot on Canon products), and then pick a subject that is close to you and has a similar albedo (reflectivity/color) as your intended target, you can get a sanity check on exposure. Then take the meter of the real subject, making sure you're not too far off. Then shoot. Then bracket it, a stop up, shoot, and a stop down, shoot. If you're shooting RAW, this will give you enough coverage, and you WILL get the shot since you can adjust exposure again in PS or DPP or whatever you use.
You can get about six stops of range in three frames for a few clicks of a wheel, and that ain't bad. If you're using aperture priority (as I usually am to control DoF) or shutter priority, it's a quick couple of clicks to make the adjustments, and worth the effort. If you're shooting manual, it's a little more effort to decide what to change, but still do-able with stationary subjects. Let us know if these suggestions work for you, or if you come up with a different technique that works better for you. :)
Good Luck!
arnet
11-24 06:20 PM
thatz gr8, always dont lose hope, keep trying....good luck...
Thanks arnet ,
As you mentioned i kept checking the chennai consulate, and it opened up like a blessing in disguise, with slots again and i was able to get my dates .Only problem was it forced me to cancel my earlier appointment and redo all the application again .That was because i had booked an appointment with Mumbai consulate in distress of not finding any with chennai .
Thanks arnet ,
As you mentioned i kept checking the chennai consulate, and it opened up like a blessing in disguise, with slots again and i was able to get my dates .Only problem was it forced me to cancel my earlier appointment and redo all the application again .That was because i had booked an appointment with Mumbai consulate in distress of not finding any with chennai .
more...
tikka
06-22 09:39 AM
is a TB skin test neccessary even if you tell the doc you've had a history of positive TB tests? do i have to prove i've had a history of postive TB test for the doctor to remark that on i-693..or can he just remark that without evidence and go on my word
thanks
Your chest xray was negative so you are fine.
To file for the 485 the skin test is a requirement. The doc has to prick you on your arm and in 48 hours you have the results.
You need him to sign off on the results.
thanks
Your chest xray was negative so you are fine.
To file for the 485 the skin test is a requirement. The doc has to prick you on your arm and in 48 hours you have the results.
You need him to sign off on the results.
2010 L#39;avion, un Airbus A321
hazishak
08-01 11:12 AM
Thanks for your quick reply :)
more...
anilsal
12-26 11:08 PM
Will become 3 nights in a row for you folks. But you are welcome to attend the next IL state chapter concall.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2708
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2708
hair Airbus A321 G-OOPH Photo
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
pappu
02-10 01:18 PM
Check the job requirement for your position. What is the qualification needed for your position?
That will answer you.
That will answer you.
hot British Airways A321
Marphad
01-09 12:38 PM
Anotehr question in thsi regard, say ur I-94 expired and you applied for and got h1 renewal, and the new I-797 has the new I-94 in it, so we cut it from there and staple it to our passports ???
And when we leave the country we surrender both the I-94s ???
No the current one!
And when we leave the country we surrender both the I-94s ???
No the current one!
more...
house 东航江苏B-6332号空客A321飞机1C
ItsLife
05-06 09:17 PM
Why are u putting unrelated stuff here. You can always consult a lawyer for lawsuit
if u feel. Ofcourse nothing is free. U will need to pay a lawyer for that.
We can post IPL matches here, we can post people working on two jobs and all the advise for every thing and not for this poor guy who seeks advise.
This is a form for immigration issues and not only to get your Green card. Incase you forget that.
This is a very sad state then some seniors think they can talk trash or anything to other members. This needs to stop asap.
if u feel. Ofcourse nothing is free. U will need to pay a lawyer for that.
We can post IPL matches here, we can post people working on two jobs and all the advise for every thing and not for this poor guy who seeks advise.
This is a form for immigration issues and not only to get your Green card. Incase you forget that.
This is a very sad state then some seniors think they can talk trash or anything to other members. This needs to stop asap.
tattoo Airbus A321 in SAS colors.
akred
06-01 02:41 AM
The White House has put up a fact sheet. Reason I came across it is because Google groups it together with our press releases when returning results. This fact sheet states twice that the bill will eliminate existing EB backlogs. Do they know something we don't?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070531-19.html
3. The Bill Will Eliminate The Current Application Backlog For Employment-Based Visas And Make 380,000 Green Cards Available Under The Merit-Based System - Up From 140,000 Employment-Based Visas Available Today.
Once The Backlogs Of Employment-Based Applicants And Family-Based Applicants Are Cleared, There Will Be 380,000 Green Cards Available Under The Merit-Based System - Up From 140,000 Employment-Based Green Cards Today. The bill makes 247,000 green cards immediately available under the merit-based system each year for the first five years after enactment.
Also, check out the sample points assignments at the end of the fact sheet.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070531-19.html
3. The Bill Will Eliminate The Current Application Backlog For Employment-Based Visas And Make 380,000 Green Cards Available Under The Merit-Based System - Up From 140,000 Employment-Based Visas Available Today.
Once The Backlogs Of Employment-Based Applicants And Family-Based Applicants Are Cleared, There Will Be 380,000 Green Cards Available Under The Merit-Based System - Up From 140,000 Employment-Based Green Cards Today. The bill makes 247,000 green cards immediately available under the merit-based system each year for the first five years after enactment.
Also, check out the sample points assignments at the end of the fact sheet.
more...
pictures JM 6Y-JMW A321-200
lecter
March 15th, 2004, 05:18 PM
Steven brings up a good point about those camera phones. I fear them to a degree. Someone told me recently that they had read/heard advice that when you're using a credit card at a store make sure you keep the numbers covered up. Apparently, people with camera phones have been known to take a picture of your card to get the numbers and expiration date.
Gary
gee they'd want to be close.
Gary
gee they'd want to be close.
dresses Airbus A321-231. SU-GBW
jonty_11
01-18 01:05 PM
No actually its seems different from the receipt numbers which usually starts with SRC-xxxxxxxxxx
This one seems different like : PIT-xxxxxxxxxxTSC
It doesn't seems to work anywhere.
did u call 18003755283....and given them this receipt number...
This one seems different like : PIT-xxxxxxxxxxTSC
It doesn't seems to work anywhere.
did u call 18003755283....and given them this receipt number...
more...
makeup AIR BERLIN Airbus A321-211 D-
yanj
12-15 10:13 AM
1 genius said "kaplan doesnt issue I-20's anymore."
so Does anybody know anywhere else can issue I-20 ?
2 Good question : Are you sure than ,while the H1B is being processed ,you can live here legally?
looking for answer ,too. Thanks a lot !
so Does anybody know anywhere else can issue I-20 ?
2 Good question : Are you sure than ,while the H1B is being processed ,you can live here legally?
looking for answer ,too. Thanks a lot !
girlfriend AIRBUS A321, 1/200 SCALE,
neverbefore
06-30 02:05 AM
I have used AC21 replied to all the RFEs about it. Laast year my attorney delayed renewal of my EAD and immediately 485 petition started moving and landed in National benefits Center for scheduling an interview.
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
hairstyles TACA holte die A321 bei Airbus
qualified_trash
12-01 05:47 PM
You cannot apply the extension for 3yrs with new employer as your labor and i140 are tied to old employer.
this info is incorrect. from a murthy chat transcript...... available at :
http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/ch102306_P.html
Chat User : I have used 6 years of my H1B and have got extension for 3 more years. Can I change employers based on a 7th-year approval? Is it legal to do so? Thank you very much for advice.
Attorney Murthy : After one has an I-140 petition approved in her/his name, s/he is allowed to file for a new 3-year H1B extension with a new or different employer based on the I-140 petition approval with another employer. Then, during the 3-year H1B timeframe, the person could potentially start a new PERM/LC process with the new employer and, thereafter, rely on the new filing for future H1B extensions, in case the earlier employer cancels or revokes the earlier LC or I-140 petition.
this info is incorrect. from a murthy chat transcript...... available at :
http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/ch102306_P.html
Chat User : I have used 6 years of my H1B and have got extension for 3 more years. Can I change employers based on a 7th-year approval? Is it legal to do so? Thank you very much for advice.
Attorney Murthy : After one has an I-140 petition approved in her/his name, s/he is allowed to file for a new 3-year H1B extension with a new or different employer based on the I-140 petition approval with another employer. Then, during the 3-year H1B timeframe, the person could potentially start a new PERM/LC process with the new employer and, thereafter, rely on the new filing for future H1B extensions, in case the earlier employer cancels or revokes the earlier LC or I-140 petition.
sc3
01-09 12:43 PM
No the current one!
No, you are supposed to return all I-94s!!.
No, you are supposed to return all I-94s!!.
paskal
04-15 08:36 PM
Hi folks,
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
many many congratulations...and thanks for sharing the news!!!
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
many many congratulations...and thanks for sharing the news!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment