tikka
05-25 04:07 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indians_Overseas/Great_immigration_debate_has_Indians_steamed_up/articleshow/2072510.cms
Please send a web fax!
Thank You
Please send a web fax!
Thank You
wallpaper hot hair with chunky
kumar1
12-08 05:30 PM
He is right.
hebron
08-09 07:38 PM
Hi Guys,
My I-140 was processed at the Nebraska center, but my attorney sent the I-485 case to Texas Service center. Since my I-140 was filed at Nebraska, I was expecting my I-485 would be sent Nebraska also.
Should it be sent to Texas center or Nebraska?
My I-140 was processed at the Nebraska center, but my attorney sent the I-485 case to Texas Service center. Since my I-140 was filed at Nebraska, I was expecting my I-485 would be sent Nebraska also.
Should it be sent to Texas center or Nebraska?
2011 Lea-Michele-highlights
Macaca
07-29 06:03 PM
Bet on India (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800999.html) The Bush administration presses forward with a nuclear agreement -- and hopes for a strategic partnership. July 29, 2007
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
more...
RNGC
02-17 04:00 PM
check this post...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=234945#post234945
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=234945#post234945
siddar
08-27 12:57 PM
Schedule an INFOPASS appointment and then request for the finger printing.
more...
Blog Feeds
11-12 04:10 PM
The Immigration Policy Center has released a new report entitled FOCUSING ON THE SOLUTIONS - Employment Verification: Repairing our Broken Immigration System which discusses the future of the E-Verify program. IPC makes a number of helpful recommendations including the following: 1. Comprehensive immigration reform - No mandatory E-Verify unless it is incorporated in to comprehensive reform legislation. 2. Apply to new hires only 3. Data accuracy: Every effort must be made to ensure that the data accessed by employers is accurate, continuously updated, and subject to review. 4. Documentation: The documents that workers are required to present must be documents...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/the-immigration-policy-center-has-released-a-new-report-entitled-focusing-on-the-solutions---employment-verification-repairi.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/the-immigration-policy-center-has-released-a-new-report-entitled-focusing-on-the-solutions---employment-verification-repairi.html)
2010 also if you have dark hair you
pappu
06-28 01:55 PM
Please do not post same question under multiple topics.
more...
cfargo
September 27th, 2004, 03:19 PM
I would like to invite you to visit our web site, http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com (http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/). This site is currently the only site written by a professional camera repairman on the subject of cleaning the sensors in digital SLR Cameras. As a matter of fact, this is written by the camera repair industries� most published author Larry Lyells.
This site discusses the methods used in-house by all manufacturers, versus what they want the consumer using. Also covered is how to make your own tools and multiple resources to obtain others. I could go on and on about the site but a visit to www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com (http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/) will show you everything.<O:p</O:p
Curt Fargo
curt@fargo-ent.com
This site discusses the methods used in-house by all manufacturers, versus what they want the consumer using. Also covered is how to make your own tools and multiple resources to obtain others. I could go on and on about the site but a visit to www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com (http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/) will show you everything.<O:p</O:p
Curt Fargo
curt@fargo-ent.com