Two years before you would have got a different reply because selling a house was easier than now. My priority date is Jan 06, EB3-I, but we bought a house because of our personal choice. We wanted to give our daughter a nice environment to grow with friends. Why should she suffer because of the delays in GC?
Not buying a house doesn't hold you up to a location, especially if you are in consulting but again if you want to settle down and travel less, with EAD, it is still OK to buy a house. As long as you have some saving to take you through just in case you have to go out of the country and come again, you should be OK. If you don't want to risk it and space is not a concern, renting is not bad at all. House in the US according to me is not an investment purely on dollar value but the quality of life is way better than renting. If you will lose sleep just because you made a major investment, then hold on for few more years.
Not buying a house doesn't hold you up to a location, especially if you are in consulting but again if you want to settle down and travel less, with EAD, it is still OK to buy a house. As long as you have some saving to take you through just in case you have to go out of the country and come again, you should be OK. If you don't want to risk it and space is not a concern, renting is not bad at all. House in the US according to me is not an investment purely on dollar value but the quality of life is way better than renting. If you will lose sleep just because you made a major investment, then hold on for few more years.
wallpaper janet jackson 2011 haircut.
I am sorry to start a new thread but I feel the following thread is not getting the importance it should get. Everyone please dont miss the following thread. Its a big defeat during our celebrations.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10751
Major loss to us Cornyn amendment rejected
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10751
Major loss to us Cornyn amendment rejected
While AP entry officer Stamped date one year back on my I 94 and AP Doc.Which means my stay was already expired before entry . Thank god I verified all dates before leaving counter. He changed it immediately. My advice to guys check it all before you leave counter. You never know which things can come back and haunt you.
you should possibly also carry a copy of the AP application. At least my application clearly stated that travel was for business/personal reasons...
I am sorry you had a bad experience...possibly because of the officer's ignorance...worth a complaint...maybe you can draft something with your lawyer....don't just ignore such bad behavior...
I have travelled on AP and didn't have any problems..although the officer stamped a wrong date (one day earlier) on my passport..talk about incompetence
you should possibly also carry a copy of the AP application. At least my application clearly stated that travel was for business/personal reasons...
I am sorry you had a bad experience...possibly because of the officer's ignorance...worth a complaint...maybe you can draft something with your lawyer....don't just ignore such bad behavior...
I have travelled on AP and didn't have any problems..although the officer stamped a wrong date (one day earlier) on my passport..talk about incompetence
2011 janet jackson 2011 concert.
no one??
I love how the majority of these "new" ideas are coming from people who didn't attend either rallies!
Good to see we have sparked some forward motion with more people becoming engaged
In reality, a few of the suggestions were carried out both in San Jose and in DC.
Good to see we have sparked some forward motion with more people becoming engaged
In reality, a few of the suggestions were carried out both in San Jose and in DC.
Could you please edit your post so that it does not take up 10 pages space of may be 10 -15 lines of information?
Thanks for rating.Realized & Edited at 12.20(while you are writing your post)
Thanks for rating.Realized & Edited at 12.20(while you are writing your post)
Looks like 25% of those still waiting are in 2005 - this blows away the earlier predictions that the dates will advance quickly through 2005 - looks like pre perm cases are considerable! I was hoping that it would reach my PD atleast in Sep 2010, but now, it looks only 50-50 chance (dont ask me how i arrived at the 50-50 number, just pulled some numbers from the air :) )!
2010 hairstyles For 2011, short
After calling US born children of illegal immigrants as "anchor babies", and family immigration as "chain migration", our friends at the anti-immigrant NumbersUSA have a new term for skilled immigrants, you guessed it "anchor immigrant".
They are again using their scare tactics to influence congress to drop its support for HR 5882.
Calling all EB3 guys, Eb2 IND guys with PD after Aug 06, and others with PD retrogressed, its in your sef-interest to call your members of congress to seek their support for this legislation, and to contribute to IV. There will be no relief for a while if this fails.
-=====
NUMBERSUSA,
ROy Beck
Aug 18, 2008
IT TAKES A VILLAGE -- Chain Migration Puts Nearly Everybody In Line To Overwhelm U.S. Communities
By Roy Beck, Monday, August 18, 2008, 12:50 AM
As soon as we take a single skilled immigrant from a developing nation, around 17 different families may be put in line to follow because of our reckless Chain Migration policies.
Our immigration policies literally "take a village" every time a new Anchor Immigrant is admitted to this country.
Fortunately, our immigration policies do have a few boundaries and delays that keep the whole village from entering our U.S. communities immediately. But every one of the members of those 17 families begins to consider future immigration to the U.S. as an entitlement. And because of that, millions don't wait for their turn, instead settling in the U.S. illegally to wait for the greencard that they believe is rightfully theirs.
THE 'ANCHOR IMMIGRANT'
Our U.S. population is exploding -- consigning more and more of us to heavily congested, heavily regulated lives -- because of high immigration numbers, which have snowballed because Congress insists on continuing Chain Migration.
Because of Chain Migration, every immigrant we allow into the country because he/she brings a special skill, education or experience becomes an Anchor Immigrant.
That is, if officials determine that an employer can't find an American to fill a job and allow the importation of a foreign worker, that worker becomes an anchor in the U.S. for vast numbers of other people from his/her home country.
One problem for the United States is that only the Anchor Immigrant is supposed to be picked on the basis of serving the national interest.
All the other immigrants attached to that Anchor through Chain Migration get to come without any regard whatsoever to their education, skill or humanitarian need.
ONE ANCHOR CONNECTS TO 17 FAMILIES
My "17-Family Chain-Migration Village" example is not close to the worst possible scenario but it is a nightmare that is not uncommon.
Here's the scenario:
Consider a typical Anchor Immigrant who comes from a developing nation and has three adult siblings. All of them come from one family. As soon as the Anchor Immigrant is accepted, all those siblings know that the Anchor Immigrant can put them in line for immigration once he/she becomes a U.S. citizen. Mentally, that one whole family is now in line to come to America.
But there are many more families who mentally get in line, too. The Anchor's spouse, plus each of those three siblings' spouses will be eligible. That makes five families now in line (the original plus the families of the four spouses).
In every one of those families are their own siblings, minor children, parents, etc. This is getting to be quite a crowd of people who suddenly see their future as possibly being in the U.S. That makes five families involved now (the original and the four spouses' families).
Now, consider the siblings of those four spouses. That would be 3 siblings multiplied by the 4 spouses, equalling 12 more adults, all of whom potentially have their own spouses! Potentially, each of those 12 spouses of the siblings of the spouses of the Anchor's siblings is from a different family.
Now, you have those 12 families, plus the Anchor's family, plus the families of the four spouses of the three siblings of the Anchor. That potentially adds up to 17 families that immediately can know that they are in a chain that eventually can have a chance to immigrate to America. And all of that happens the minute our government decides to give a permanent work permit to a single foreign worker.
An Anchor Immigrant immediately creates chains of expectation into possibly 17 different families.
You can imagine how a village or urban neighborhood can quickly have most of its residents seeing that their future is in the United States. Not only does this build huge pressures for more migration and more population growth in the U.S. but it saps whole villages and neighborhoods of the will for self-improvement.
Why will people pour themselves into bettering their own communities when they believe their future lies living in America? And, of course, the chain migration does not end with those 17 families. Our rules are set up so that every Chain Immigrant also becomes an Anchor Immigrant, making it possible for every relative to get in line to come to the U.S.
The only solution is to end the Chain Migration categories entirely. (See our pages on the legislative solutions.) That means limiting each Anchor Immigrant to bringing a spouse and minor children. No adult children, siblings or parents.
The Anchor Immigrant can easily visit his/her relatives annually (or more often) and can be in constant communication by phone, internet and postal mail. Chain categories must be ended if we are to avoid the nightmare of 439 million U.S. population in 2050 as projected by the Census Bureau.
CONGRESS THREATENING TO ADD 550,000 MORE 'ANCHOR IMMIGRANTS' NEXT YEAR
Sen. Menendez of New Jersey is blocking the re-authorization of E-Verify (to keep illegal aliens out of jobs) until Congress agrees to add 550,000 additional Anchor Immigrants next year.
At the moment, the leadership of both Senate and House are seriously considering trying to pass the 550,000 increase in Anchor Immigrants.
Powerful media like the Los Angeles Times and New York Times are lobbying hard for more Anchor Immigrants.
Unless the American people themselves become fully aware of the dangers of Chain Migration and the concept of the "17-Family Chain-Migration Village," the Big Business and Big Media lobbyists are likely to multiply the chain migration nightmare many times again.
Make sure you have gone to your NumbersUSA Action Buffet and sent all your free faxes to push your Members of Congress to stop Sen. Menendez and to eliminate Chain Migration.
They are again using their scare tactics to influence congress to drop its support for HR 5882.
Calling all EB3 guys, Eb2 IND guys with PD after Aug 06, and others with PD retrogressed, its in your sef-interest to call your members of congress to seek their support for this legislation, and to contribute to IV. There will be no relief for a while if this fails.
-=====
NUMBERSUSA,
ROy Beck
Aug 18, 2008
IT TAKES A VILLAGE -- Chain Migration Puts Nearly Everybody In Line To Overwhelm U.S. Communities
By Roy Beck, Monday, August 18, 2008, 12:50 AM
As soon as we take a single skilled immigrant from a developing nation, around 17 different families may be put in line to follow because of our reckless Chain Migration policies.
Our immigration policies literally "take a village" every time a new Anchor Immigrant is admitted to this country.
Fortunately, our immigration policies do have a few boundaries and delays that keep the whole village from entering our U.S. communities immediately. But every one of the members of those 17 families begins to consider future immigration to the U.S. as an entitlement. And because of that, millions don't wait for their turn, instead settling in the U.S. illegally to wait for the greencard that they believe is rightfully theirs.
THE 'ANCHOR IMMIGRANT'
Our U.S. population is exploding -- consigning more and more of us to heavily congested, heavily regulated lives -- because of high immigration numbers, which have snowballed because Congress insists on continuing Chain Migration.
Because of Chain Migration, every immigrant we allow into the country because he/she brings a special skill, education or experience becomes an Anchor Immigrant.
That is, if officials determine that an employer can't find an American to fill a job and allow the importation of a foreign worker, that worker becomes an anchor in the U.S. for vast numbers of other people from his/her home country.
One problem for the United States is that only the Anchor Immigrant is supposed to be picked on the basis of serving the national interest.
All the other immigrants attached to that Anchor through Chain Migration get to come without any regard whatsoever to their education, skill or humanitarian need.
ONE ANCHOR CONNECTS TO 17 FAMILIES
My "17-Family Chain-Migration Village" example is not close to the worst possible scenario but it is a nightmare that is not uncommon.
Here's the scenario:
Consider a typical Anchor Immigrant who comes from a developing nation and has three adult siblings. All of them come from one family. As soon as the Anchor Immigrant is accepted, all those siblings know that the Anchor Immigrant can put them in line for immigration once he/she becomes a U.S. citizen. Mentally, that one whole family is now in line to come to America.
But there are many more families who mentally get in line, too. The Anchor's spouse, plus each of those three siblings' spouses will be eligible. That makes five families now in line (the original plus the families of the four spouses).
In every one of those families are their own siblings, minor children, parents, etc. This is getting to be quite a crowd of people who suddenly see their future as possibly being in the U.S. That makes five families involved now (the original and the four spouses' families).
Now, consider the siblings of those four spouses. That would be 3 siblings multiplied by the 4 spouses, equalling 12 more adults, all of whom potentially have their own spouses! Potentially, each of those 12 spouses of the siblings of the spouses of the Anchor's siblings is from a different family.
Now, you have those 12 families, plus the Anchor's family, plus the families of the four spouses of the three siblings of the Anchor. That potentially adds up to 17 families that immediately can know that they are in a chain that eventually can have a chance to immigrate to America. And all of that happens the minute our government decides to give a permanent work permit to a single foreign worker.
An Anchor Immigrant immediately creates chains of expectation into possibly 17 different families.
You can imagine how a village or urban neighborhood can quickly have most of its residents seeing that their future is in the United States. Not only does this build huge pressures for more migration and more population growth in the U.S. but it saps whole villages and neighborhoods of the will for self-improvement.
Why will people pour themselves into bettering their own communities when they believe their future lies living in America? And, of course, the chain migration does not end with those 17 families. Our rules are set up so that every Chain Immigrant also becomes an Anchor Immigrant, making it possible for every relative to get in line to come to the U.S.
The only solution is to end the Chain Migration categories entirely. (See our pages on the legislative solutions.) That means limiting each Anchor Immigrant to bringing a spouse and minor children. No adult children, siblings or parents.
The Anchor Immigrant can easily visit his/her relatives annually (or more often) and can be in constant communication by phone, internet and postal mail. Chain categories must be ended if we are to avoid the nightmare of 439 million U.S. population in 2050 as projected by the Census Bureau.
CONGRESS THREATENING TO ADD 550,000 MORE 'ANCHOR IMMIGRANTS' NEXT YEAR
Sen. Menendez of New Jersey is blocking the re-authorization of E-Verify (to keep illegal aliens out of jobs) until Congress agrees to add 550,000 additional Anchor Immigrants next year.
At the moment, the leadership of both Senate and House are seriously considering trying to pass the 550,000 increase in Anchor Immigrants.
Powerful media like the Los Angeles Times and New York Times are lobbying hard for more Anchor Immigrants.
Unless the American people themselves become fully aware of the dangers of Chain Migration and the concept of the "17-Family Chain-Migration Village," the Big Business and Big Media lobbyists are likely to multiply the chain migration nightmare many times again.
Make sure you have gone to your NumbersUSA Action Buffet and sent all your free faxes to push your Members of Congress to stop Sen. Menendez and to eliminate Chain Migration.
As this issue has been going on for some time I decided to add my two cents for whatever it is worth.
It is important not just to note the content of a posting but also its tone. People in this forum are smart enought to determine whether a posting contain constructive criticism or is just accusatory. I think it is better to leave the accusatory ones to die a natural death while replying to constructive posts even when they are heavily critical.
Another thing to note is that everyone has their own peculiar situation. It may quite work out that only some issues may be solved by the legislation and it may not work to a person's advantage. Even then the people who are actively involved should make the call about what to pursue and what not to. The subtle nuances of the behind the scene politics is not visible to us sitting on the outside and I personally wouldn't like insider details aired on this public forum as this would provide the opposition with ammunition. I may be a bit conceited in thinking that discussions in this forum are being watched by the opposition but I am sure that that is happening.
Meanwhile good luck to everybody and my sincere appreciation to the core IV volunteers who it appears have significant understanding of how the political game is being played.
It is important not just to note the content of a posting but also its tone. People in this forum are smart enought to determine whether a posting contain constructive criticism or is just accusatory. I think it is better to leave the accusatory ones to die a natural death while replying to constructive posts even when they are heavily critical.
Another thing to note is that everyone has their own peculiar situation. It may quite work out that only some issues may be solved by the legislation and it may not work to a person's advantage. Even then the people who are actively involved should make the call about what to pursue and what not to. The subtle nuances of the behind the scene politics is not visible to us sitting on the outside and I personally wouldn't like insider details aired on this public forum as this would provide the opposition with ammunition. I may be a bit conceited in thinking that discussions in this forum are being watched by the opposition but I am sure that that is happening.
Meanwhile good luck to everybody and my sincere appreciation to the core IV volunteers who it appears have significant understanding of how the political game is being played.
hair Janet Jackson at premere “Why
thanks Michael chertoff
Not baby sitter. I want to take care of my parents.
it is part of our culture, we all live together forever.
Not baby sitter. I want to take care of my parents.
it is part of our culture, we all live together forever.
I went through the Federal Firearm Law and here is what I found:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person�
(5) who, being an alien�
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas.�
(1) Definitions.� In this subsection�
(A) the term �alien� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(3)); and
(B) the term �nonimmigrant visa� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)).
(2) EXCEPTIONS: Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and(s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that alien is:
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
(B) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(i) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States;or
(ii) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
101(a)(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101(a)(26) The term "nonimmigrant visa" means a visa properly issued to an alien as an eligible nonimmigrant by a competent officer as provided in this Act.
As per my understanding, if you are legally in the US, you can own a small firearm...walk into a store and tell them u need a gun and they will tell u what paper work you need or go to your local police station and ask the requirements. You can find out more details on NRA [national rifle association] website
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person�
(5) who, being an alien�
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas.�
(1) Definitions.� In this subsection�
(A) the term �alien� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(3)); and
(B) the term �nonimmigrant visa� has the same meaning as in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)).
(2) EXCEPTIONS: Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and(s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, if that alien is:
(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States;
(B) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(i) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States;or
(ii) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
101(a)(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101(a)(26) The term "nonimmigrant visa" means a visa properly issued to an alien as an eligible nonimmigrant by a competent officer as provided in this Act.
As per my understanding, if you are legally in the US, you can own a small firearm...walk into a store and tell them u need a gun and they will tell u what paper work you need or go to your local police station and ask the requirements. You can find out more details on NRA [national rifle association] website
hot janet jackson 2011 haircut.
Check/Bill-pay has been temporarily discontinued due to logistics reasons.
PayPal automates the payments. Checks/Billpay requires an IV volunteer (trusted by IV core) to take time off and physically collect these checks/echecks from the IV mailbox in NJ, and deposit them to the IV bank account. Someone has to spend time and effort into doing it !
Are you saying IV can't find anyone IV trust to do this, or nobody in IV core thinks it is woth it to do some extra leg work? I don't think IV has the luxury of not doing the leg work. Every peny counts.
PayPal automates the payments. Checks/Billpay requires an IV volunteer (trusted by IV core) to take time off and physically collect these checks/echecks from the IV mailbox in NJ, and deposit them to the IV bank account. Someone has to spend time and effort into doing it !
Are you saying IV can't find anyone IV trust to do this, or nobody in IV core thinks it is woth it to do some extra leg work? I don't think IV has the luxury of not doing the leg work. Every peny counts.
house janet jackson 2011 haircut
What are the odds that this deal will carry more weight than the one announced with great fanfare just over a month ago when CIR was on the senate floor? :(
Nah, of course they would never pull a stunt like that again. I am sure W told them he was rather disappointed. So everythings gonna be OK. Lets go party. Just leave money for the plane tickets. :rolleyes: :D :eek:
Nah, of course they would never pull a stunt like that again. I am sure W told them he was rather disappointed. So everythings gonna be OK. Lets go party. Just leave money for the plane tickets. :rolleyes: :D :eek:
tattoo Janet Jackson Hairstyle
In November 2006, Secretary Chertoff discussed a risk-based approach to homeland security threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences:
[T]he core principle that animates what we do at DHS . . . is risk management. It is a recognition of the fact that management of risk is not elimination of risk. There is no elimination of risk in life, and anybody who promises every single person protection against every threat at every moment in every place in the country is making a false promise . . .. What we do have to do is identify and prioritize risks -- understanding the threat, the vulnerability and the consequence. And then we have to apply our resources in a cost-effective manner, using discipline and common sense in order to minimize the risk without imposing undue cost on our communities and our families.
Despite Secretary Chertoff�s continuing emphasis on risk management, USCIS performs FBI name checks without the benefit of risk management modeling. In recent visits to USCIS field offices, a number of leaders have questioned the usefulness of the FBI name checks citing some of the same concerns discussed here. The process is not working and consideration should be given to re-engineering it to include a risk-based approach to immigration screening and national security. The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently noted in a report that �[w]hile the Secretary of DHS has expressed a commitment to risk management, DHS has not performed comprehensive risk assessments in . . . immigration and customs systems to guide resource allocation decisions.�
Every effort should be undertaken to identify and remove persons who pose threats to the United States, which would include rescinding immigration benefits after USCIS has granted them. It would be irresponsible for law enforcement entities to stop their investigation of a potential crime merely because the person who is the subject of their investigation has obtained a green card or U.S. citizenship.
Similarly, it would be illogical to think that delaying issuance of a green card or U.S. citizenship will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. Considering the protection the FBI name check provides, the cost of government resources used, and mental and actual hardships to applicants and their families, USCIS should reassess the continuation of its policy to require FBI name checks in their current form.
[T]he core principle that animates what we do at DHS . . . is risk management. It is a recognition of the fact that management of risk is not elimination of risk. There is no elimination of risk in life, and anybody who promises every single person protection against every threat at every moment in every place in the country is making a false promise . . .. What we do have to do is identify and prioritize risks -- understanding the threat, the vulnerability and the consequence. And then we have to apply our resources in a cost-effective manner, using discipline and common sense in order to minimize the risk without imposing undue cost on our communities and our families.
Despite Secretary Chertoff�s continuing emphasis on risk management, USCIS performs FBI name checks without the benefit of risk management modeling. In recent visits to USCIS field offices, a number of leaders have questioned the usefulness of the FBI name checks citing some of the same concerns discussed here. The process is not working and consideration should be given to re-engineering it to include a risk-based approach to immigration screening and national security. The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently noted in a report that �[w]hile the Secretary of DHS has expressed a commitment to risk management, DHS has not performed comprehensive risk assessments in . . . immigration and customs systems to guide resource allocation decisions.�
Every effort should be undertaken to identify and remove persons who pose threats to the United States, which would include rescinding immigration benefits after USCIS has granted them. It would be irresponsible for law enforcement entities to stop their investigation of a potential crime merely because the person who is the subject of their investigation has obtained a green card or U.S. citizenship.
Similarly, it would be illogical to think that delaying issuance of a green card or U.S. citizenship will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. Considering the protection the FBI name check provides, the cost of government resources used, and mental and actual hardships to applicants and their families, USCIS should reassess the continuation of its policy to require FBI name checks in their current form.
pictures janet jackson 2011 haircut.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090080116&ch=1/15/2009%202:59:00%20PM
dresses Janet Jackson attends amfAR#39;s
good old AG created this mess, there was a reason that he was called easy Al...suggest reading Bill Fleckenstein's , "Greenspan's Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve."
Bernake has studied the great depression, he is probably the best person for the current situation, his hands are tied by a number of factors..suggested reading :)
Ben Bernanke (2005). Essays on the Great Depression.
Ben Bernanke, Thomas Laubach, Frederic Mishkin, and Adam Posen: Inflation Targeting: Lessons from the International Experience. Princeton University Press
btw, h1techSlave, there is next to nothing he can do to help us with the GCs, that my friend is one heck of a pipe dream. There is a 19 trillion derivatives market (trillion with a T) going down the drain, i doubt he has time to read or even think about your letters.
I would try get Alan Greenspan back into office :rolleyes:
Bernanke does not seem that qualified IMHO.
Bernake has studied the great depression, he is probably the best person for the current situation, his hands are tied by a number of factors..suggested reading :)
Ben Bernanke (2005). Essays on the Great Depression.
Ben Bernanke, Thomas Laubach, Frederic Mishkin, and Adam Posen: Inflation Targeting: Lessons from the International Experience. Princeton University Press
btw, h1techSlave, there is next to nothing he can do to help us with the GCs, that my friend is one heck of a pipe dream. There is a 19 trillion derivatives market (trillion with a T) going down the drain, i doubt he has time to read or even think about your letters.
I would try get Alan Greenspan back into office :rolleyes:
Bernanke does not seem that qualified IMHO.
makeup Janet Jackson#39;s retro hat
You're welcome.
Yep. Got copies of labor, I-140 forms and approvals via FOIA. :)
Thanks xlr8r!! I am filing today. Dont have I140 receipt number.
Did your luck shine !!!!
Yep. Got copies of labor, I-140 forms and approvals via FOIA. :)
Thanks xlr8r!! I am filing today. Dont have I140 receipt number.
Did your luck shine !!!!
girlfriend like the one Janet Jackson
I had anticipated this and actually converted my I-140 which was filed regular in Feb 2007 to Premium a few days after the June Bulletin and the fact that they terminated I-140 premium processing altogether for Labor Substitutions.
We immediately converted our I-140 (in which we were recapturing our older PD), to premium to avoid any such future USCIS Bolts from the blue.
We immediately converted our I-140 (in which we were recapturing our older PD), to premium to avoid any such future USCIS Bolts from the blue.
hairstyles Janet Jackson#39;s Short Hair Cut
you know, they posted August 29 for I140 at Texas, i predict it will magically move back to, lets say, July 28.
I'm ok with banning IP address. People can always go home and use IV, instead of wasting time at work.
I respect all the holidays and I would like to celebrate with you guys, but what is the meaning of Diwali?
