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.
wallpaper Updo hairstyle Cate Blanchett
kak1978
06-04 10:06 AM
I had a account in Bank of America, and they sent me a letter when i asked them to send a "Account verification letter for Immigration purposes" They charged me $10 for that and took around a week. See if you can open a account at a local bank and try transfering the money to that account, Before you decide on opening a account , confirm if they issue such a letter.
TexasGC
07-21 03:21 PM
Why does USCIS want TB test done? Many countries like India have BCG vaccination administered at childhood thus preventing TB. However, such people will show a false positive if administered a skin test for TB.
This is causing many Indians to go for a chest xray. I feel this is a ridiculous requirement.
This is causing many Indians to go for a chest xray. I feel this is a ridiculous requirement.
2011 Celebrity Red Carpet Hair
ajju
03-01 11:55 AM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
more...
Raju
06-13 09:00 AM
Hi
I have given up hopes of getting an H-1B through the Master's quota. I applied on April 4. So there are no hopes anyway.
Now how can one get an H-1B through a non-profit organization. My understanding of this process is not very clear. I was under the impression (wrong impression!!) that if I can get a job at a Non-Profit place through a consulting company(I am an employee of the consulting company and not the Non-Profit org) and because my workplace is at a non-profit organization, I can get an H-1B that qualifies as one that belongs to the Non-Profit H-1B category.
Please clarify. I am trying to understand this clearly.
Thanks very much
I dont think this will fly. This is a stretch. There is nothing to understand here. Claerly, you are an employee of consulting firm, which is a for profit organisation. Your H-1B is filed by the consulting company and not the non-profit organisation.
I have given up hopes of getting an H-1B through the Master's quota. I applied on April 4. So there are no hopes anyway.
Now how can one get an H-1B through a non-profit organization. My understanding of this process is not very clear. I was under the impression (wrong impression!!) that if I can get a job at a Non-Profit place through a consulting company(I am an employee of the consulting company and not the Non-Profit org) and because my workplace is at a non-profit organization, I can get an H-1B that qualifies as one that belongs to the Non-Profit H-1B category.
Please clarify. I am trying to understand this clearly.
Thanks very much
I dont think this will fly. This is a stretch. There is nothing to understand here. Claerly, you are an employee of consulting firm, which is a for profit organisation. Your H-1B is filed by the consulting company and not the non-profit organisation.
seeking_GC
07-11 10:56 PM
This is beginning to look more and more like a organized and deliberate attempt to block people from filing for AOS.If the mysterious "knowledgeable official" quoted on the website can be summoned in court- that would be game over for the USCIS right there......
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
more...
PHANI_TAVVALA
12-02 02:26 PM
FinalGC, Thanks for your reply. I am partially paying for this process. I heard that if the labor is approved and h1b is about to expire, I can apply I-140 under premium processing due to a recent rule change. Is that true? If so, will I be able apply concurrent I-140 and h1B extension?
2010 2010 2011 Hairstyles Women
bfadlia
11-30 10:48 AM
you may try to send them other evidence of your language skills, presence, study, or work in the US, a letter of explanation, .. but there is no guarantee they'll accept this, especially if you gave yourself maximum points in the language skills. I know people who got their phd's in the US and they were still adked to do IELTS.
But once they already asked you to take the test, you have to do it, they would suspect fraud if you don't
I took the test, it's no big deal, not much preparation needed for people like us using English everyday at work.
But once they already asked you to take the test, you have to do it, they would suspect fraud if you don't
I took the test, it's no big deal, not much preparation needed for people like us using English everyday at work.
more...
imneedy
02-04 01:33 PM
There is no need to change to H4. asaik , that is an extra un-necessary step.
AP should be enough.
Well..you can fall back to H-4 if something goes wrong with 485. But if you are on AP you will have to leave the country.
AP should be enough.
Well..you can fall back to H-4 if something goes wrong with 485. But if you are on AP you will have to leave the country.
hair celebrity red carpet
mbartosik
11-09 05:27 PM
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bapio&btnG=Search+News
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_docs_win_legal_battle_in_UK/articleshow/2530784.cms
Good for them!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_docs_win_legal_battle_in_UK/articleshow/2530784.cms
Good for them!
more...
ajju
09-07 12:10 PM
Same thing happened with me - since graduation I have been in the same company for 5 yrs, still as far as labor is concerned it is considered MS+0 yrs( i was very very disappointed on learning that), but changing job to get EB-2 just for this cause is a bit of over-reaction (assuming you are happy in ur current job).
If you've BS degree and one employer only for last 5 years... You can't file as EB2 even though your job needs it and you've 5 years experience.. In that case it might make some sense in switching.. But with MS.. you are already EB2.. so no gain by switching... You'd be just fine...
If you've BS degree and one employer only for last 5 years... You can't file as EB2 even though your job needs it and you've 5 years experience.. In that case it might make some sense in switching.. But with MS.. you are already EB2.. so no gain by switching... You'd be just fine...
hot celebrity red carpet
sasidhar79
09-16 02:37 PM
I just signed the online petition to drop Dobbs, I hope everybody in IV will do it and help us get rid of this Hatemonger.
more...
house wedding-hairstyle
purgan
02-18 12:02 AM
Actually I had suggested a phone/fax campaign to Durbins office. The Anti-immigration/protectionist organizations such as Programmers Guild have targeted this senator for a reason.....but no one is getting our point of view across to him.
I don't think he's anti-immigrant, but the fact is no one from our community has reached out to him in an organized manner.
I suggest we start a phone/fax and flower compaign....
I don't think he's anti-immigrant, but the fact is no one from our community has reached out to him in an organized manner.
I suggest we start a phone/fax and flower compaign....
tattoo This hairstyle screams cute,
gcwait2007
06-29 11:58 PM
Chanduv23,
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
more...
pictures on the red carpet at the
Lord Rahl
03-04 10:00 PM
ames, post your picture in your own thread with a title for it under the Just Draw Yourself sectoin of the forums HERE (http://www.kirupa.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=152).
This thread is for the list of entries and to notify big K of your entry if it's not added to the list of entries within 24 hours.
Nice Job by the way.
This thread is for the list of entries and to notify big K of your entry if it's not added to the list of entries within 24 hours.
Nice Job by the way.
dresses New 2008 Prom Hairstyles Ideas
mheggade
05-22 11:36 AM
All,
so Please dont jump at this rule , think about it its good for us , I m sure guys who filed their labor late 2007/early 2008 will be thinking oh what happens if July 07 happens again , but trust me thats very unlikely ..Also your 140 will be approved way a head before you apply for 485.
On the Postive side ...Even if July becomes current , people are still good to apply concurrent. Because this rule will come into effect only from Aug.
Cheer up.
so Please dont jump at this rule , think about it its good for us , I m sure guys who filed their labor late 2007/early 2008 will be thinking oh what happens if July 07 happens again , but trust me thats very unlikely ..Also your 140 will be approved way a head before you apply for 485.
On the Postive side ...Even if July becomes current , people are still good to apply concurrent. Because this rule will come into effect only from Aug.
Cheer up.
more...
makeup for brides and red carpet
MatsP
June 7th, 2005, 02:21 AM
These are all good suggestions and translate well from my film days. I also read that, whereas in b&w the adage was expose for the shadows and develop (or print) for highlights, in digital it is the reverse - expose to preserve detail in the highlights and then use your curves in RAW to fix the shadows where you want them. So I'll have to put all that to work this week / weekend. If the flowers stay around, that is.
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach. The b&w film is probably much more tolerant to overexposure than the sensor, same as colour film, you can overexpose several stops, and as long as you compensate in the printing phase. Not so with digital cameras, they can tolerate only a very mild case of overexposure. In RAW it's a little bit more tolerant than if you use JPG in the camera, but only because the most fine details in the highlight is lost when converting from internal RAW pixels to 8-bit pixels for the JPG. Also consider that the lost information is actually just the last few bits, so when multiplied up to show a decent image, you'd still get a pretty sketchy result.
I'd also like to concur with Josh about the sensitivity: the range that the sensor can accept intense light is pretty much the same for all DSLR's for the same generation. You'll just have to live with it, compensate for it and wait for the next generation of sensors that are more tolerant... ;-)
--
Mats
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach. The b&w film is probably much more tolerant to overexposure than the sensor, same as colour film, you can overexpose several stops, and as long as you compensate in the printing phase. Not so with digital cameras, they can tolerate only a very mild case of overexposure. In RAW it's a little bit more tolerant than if you use JPG in the camera, but only because the most fine details in the highlight is lost when converting from internal RAW pixels to 8-bit pixels for the JPG. Also consider that the lost information is actually just the last few bits, so when multiplied up to show a decent image, you'd still get a pretty sketchy result.
I'd also like to concur with Josh about the sensitivity: the range that the sensor can accept intense light is pretty much the same for all DSLR's for the same generation. You'll just have to live with it, compensate for it and wait for the next generation of sensors that are more tolerant... ;-)
--
Mats
girlfriend celebrity red carpet hair
forgerator
04-29 03:39 PM
The majority of people who return to their home countries do so due to family related reasons. America is still the land of opportunity and the best bet to earn big bucks.
hairstyles celebrity hairstyles, updos
andycool
11-10 06:39 AM
Hello gurus,
I have one doubt abt requirements to port EB2.
my EB3 priority date is Aug 2005, now i am planning to apply EB2 with different employer. do i need 5 yrs experience as of my Eb3 priority date in order to port Eb3 priority date to Eb3 ? my lawyer is saying i need 5 yrs experience as of Aug 2005 is it true ?
thanks a lot for your help
Your Lawyer is wrong....EB2 is for your current employment it has nothing to do with your previous PD .
IMHO...it was like that for Labor Substitution case ...But for new EB2 Application its not needed...find a good Lawyer.
thanks
I have one doubt abt requirements to port EB2.
my EB3 priority date is Aug 2005, now i am planning to apply EB2 with different employer. do i need 5 yrs experience as of my Eb3 priority date in order to port Eb3 priority date to Eb3 ? my lawyer is saying i need 5 yrs experience as of Aug 2005 is it true ?
thanks a lot for your help
Your Lawyer is wrong....EB2 is for your current employment it has nothing to do with your previous PD .
IMHO...it was like that for Labor Substitution case ...But for new EB2 Application its not needed...find a good Lawyer.
thanks
bbenhill
01-09 04:06 PM
applies to generan legal immigrant population.
How about instead of survey we put it as a sticky note to announce if someone have information that in his/her place is hiring. With that way we can help all people who got laid off and this site can be a networking website.
Please give me green if you like my idea :D
How about instead of survey we put it as a sticky note to announce if someone have information that in his/her place is hiring. With that way we can help all people who got laid off and this site can be a networking website.
Please give me green if you like my idea :D
raydon
09-17 09:50 AM
If CNN drops Lou that will not pass CIR or recapture. There are so much Lou Dobbs are there in USA. It is a waste of time.
Exactly. I was of the same opinion. CNN dumping a pathetic whiny loser like Lou Dobbs might give temporary satisfaction, but it has no positive effect on EB immigration. Plus there are a dozen other idiots who might be ready to replace him as the crazy-in-chief on that stupid talk show. Why even bother?
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
Exactly. I was of the same opinion. CNN dumping a pathetic whiny loser like Lou Dobbs might give temporary satisfaction, but it has no positive effect on EB immigration. Plus there are a dozen other idiots who might be ready to replace him as the crazy-in-chief on that stupid talk show. Why even bother?
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment