newuser
05-14 04:53 PM
Thanks for the update and we all support your efforts.
wallpaper July 24, 2010 Florida Review 5
skdskd
09-27 09:52 AM
I have approved I140 notice ... i dont see A# can you pls help me find that number in approval notice (797)
As per my Immigration attorney, USCIS some times assigns A# at the time of I-140 approval and some times NOT.
So I won't worry about it if it is not on I-140
As per my Immigration attorney, USCIS some times assigns A# at the time of I-140 approval and some times NOT.
So I won't worry about it if it is not on I-140
boreal
08-24 12:32 AM
People who did BSc and BA...have gotten thier Gc approved recently...by getting pre-approved..LC's applying in e2-rir even though they do not qualify in EB2.people who did MS from top schools and stayed with good companies are in e2/ e3 categories are in BEC.....What an irony..
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
Well....not everything in life is fair. There are such laws that can be exploited and ppl will do that all the time. No use whining...
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
Well....not everything in life is fair. There are such laws that can be exploited and ppl will do that all the time. No use whining...
2011 Large scale map of Florida
mhtanim
02-26 02:04 PM
This is correct as per my understanding. As soon as your GC is approved you will need AP to re-enter US. IO at POE will have the information about your approved GC. I do not think he will allow you to enter on H4 after the GC Approval.
This is just my understanding. Check with a attorney to get precise information.
No need for AP. If someone mails him the GC, he can get back to the U.S. with it.
This is just my understanding. Check with a attorney to get precise information.
No need for AP. If someone mails him the GC, he can get back to the U.S. with it.
more...
boreal
08-24 12:32 AM
People who did BSc and BA...have gotten thier Gc approved recently...by getting pre-approved..LC's applying in e2-rir even though they do not qualify in EB2.people who did MS from top schools and stayed with good companies are in e2/ e3 categories are in BEC.....What an irony..
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
Well....not everything in life is fair. There are such laws that can be exploited and ppl will do that all the time. No use whining...
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
Well....not everything in life is fair. There are such laws that can be exploited and ppl will do that all the time. No use whining...
rockstart
12-07 11:07 AM
Yes they can qualify in certain cases but the application as well as candidate have to be exceptionally strong. The company should be able to prove that the job needs a guy with EB1 skills and candidate should have proven academic record with publications and patents that support the job description. I had heard of a guy from Texas Instruments who got his GC through EB1
more...
Jeff Wheeler
11-30 01:11 AM
why would flash people move on to flex ? That makes no sense at all.
Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you think you do, but you really don't.
Is this directed at me?
Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you think you do, but you really don't.
Is this directed at me?
2010 19th Century Map of Florida
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...
sachug22
12-10 02:31 PM
deleted
hair Florida Keys Map
vinay.shah73
01-17 03:12 AM
Both I and my wife had LUD update on Jan 9th. We got an RFE for her (but not me), asking for evidence regarding the bona fides of marriage. It will be great if you can share your experiences on RFE with us.
Here is what USCIS specifically requested:
1. Birth certificates of children
2. Documents of joint ownership of property such as car title, house (grant deed or rental agreement), etc.
3. Joint income tax returns
4. Joint financial accounts such as bank statements
5. Spousal insurance coverage such as health insurance and life insurance
In my original application, I had submitted the marriage certificate (in English) from India. I can resubmit that.
Things that I plan to submit:
a) Marriage certificate from India.
b) Joint US income tax returns for 2006.
c) Joint bank statement.
d) Kaiser health insurance for spouse.
e) Joint credit card statements.
We do not have kids. No car title or house on joint name. No rental agreement or utility bills on joint name. We do not have life insurance.
Please let me know if these documents sound reasonable enough to convince USCIS. If there is anything else that I can provide, please do let me know.
Thanks a lot!
vinay.shah73@gmail.com
PS: I filed I-485 in Jan 2007 under EB-1 in Nebraska Service Center. My I-140 was also approved in Jan 2007. This was not a concurrent filing. I filed I-485 after getting I-140 approved. Got finger-print, EAD, AP in April.
Here is what USCIS specifically requested:
1. Birth certificates of children
2. Documents of joint ownership of property such as car title, house (grant deed or rental agreement), etc.
3. Joint income tax returns
4. Joint financial accounts such as bank statements
5. Spousal insurance coverage such as health insurance and life insurance
In my original application, I had submitted the marriage certificate (in English) from India. I can resubmit that.
Things that I plan to submit:
a) Marriage certificate from India.
b) Joint US income tax returns for 2006.
c) Joint bank statement.
d) Kaiser health insurance for spouse.
e) Joint credit card statements.
We do not have kids. No car title or house on joint name. No rental agreement or utility bills on joint name. We do not have life insurance.
Please let me know if these documents sound reasonable enough to convince USCIS. If there is anything else that I can provide, please do let me know.
Thanks a lot!
vinay.shah73@gmail.com
PS: I filed I-485 in Jan 2007 under EB-1 in Nebraska Service Center. My I-140 was also approved in Jan 2007. This was not a concurrent filing. I filed I-485 after getting I-140 approved. Got finger-print, EAD, AP in April.
more...
baburob2
02-16 01:17 PM
Hi Logiclife
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
The 2004-2005 more usuage of EB visas for Indians is done because those were approved through AC21's unused visas i believe between 1999-2000 which are quota independent and not just from the annual quota of 140K. Hence in 2004-2005 there were more usuage. Starting from 2006 only thing left is the annual quota of 140K with per country quota of 7% at the max which has to be split among several EB categories in some proportions (roughly 1/3 among EB1, EB2, Eb3).The spillovers within 7% alone can be redistributed within a country's EB quota in the final quarter of the year. Hence the max India can get is 7% no matter how much gets spilled over from the rest of the world. THe only way to get the spillover back into the picture is another law enactment everytime it happens to get it back which is slow and painful process. Hence in nutshell to remove retrogression the easiest way is to remove country cap is or increase it . Else it is always going to stay even if annual quota is increased or through anyother measures. Hence I would recommend positively IV to focus on doing it and not mere increasing the quota.
hot florida extinct tribes map
JunRN
05-05 10:09 AM
To force USCIS to adjudicate i-140 within 180 days or 6 months, if concurrent filing is removed, we may comment to include a clause that says "If i-140 is pending for more than 180 days and PD is current, i-485 may be filed.
Better yet, if they will include filing of i-485 even if PD is not current.
The silverlining if they remove concurrent filing is that there will be pressure to adjudicate i-140 within reasonable time or better yet, a hard target of 6 months.
Better yet, if they will include filing of i-485 even if PD is not current.
The silverlining if they remove concurrent filing is that there will be pressure to adjudicate i-140 within reasonable time or better yet, a hard target of 6 months.
more...
house Florida Regions Map
naveenarjun
09-11 05:24 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/5124255.html
tattoo FLORIDA MAP
mnkaushik
06-04 10:02 AM
I got an account verification letter from HSBC Online Savings Bank. Just go to the Bank Mail section and ask for an AV letter. They will charge you $20 or $25 for it. I got it done last month.
more...
pictures florida shark bites map
ram_ram
06-08 02:16 PM
Not possible. You can carry your PD once the 140(based on the labor that has the PD) is approved. Not the other way..
dresses Vintage Map of Florida Poster
santb1975
03-24 12:37 PM
I am listening to this now
more...
makeup At Maimi,FL you are sure
vin13
09-30 02:57 PM
i just called USCIS to find out when i would be recieving the mail...a very nice lady told me that it is taking 30 days for us to get the mail. Even though they say they have mailed.
She said one more thing which I am not sure how far I would beileve....she said:
"It does not matter what the visa bulletein dates show as you have already filed the applications..so all you need to look at is Processing dates."
i asked her then even if the visa bulletein dates are not current for my case then do we have any chance of getting the gc...she said yes...if yours come under the processing dates.
I am not sure what to make of this.....
She said one more thing which I am not sure how far I would beileve....she said:
"It does not matter what the visa bulletein dates show as you have already filed the applications..so all you need to look at is Processing dates."
i asked her then even if the visa bulletein dates are not current for my case then do we have any chance of getting the gc...she said yes...if yours come under the processing dates.
I am not sure what to make of this.....
girlfriend Florida is the fourth largest
admin
04-03 07:32 AM
Some of the figures looked a bit too unbelievable so I checked out. A particular one that was hard to believe - in the US Science and Engineering undergraduates is 32% (page 1 of IV report). On checking with the referenced document (Executive summary) at:
http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11463.pdf
Page 12 quotes a figure of 15% for US undergraduates in Science/Engineering.
IV core members can you please clarify? If it is incorrect then we need to correct the document before some one points out the flaw.
brb2, Thanks for pointing it out. Actually the figure of 15% makes our case stronger. We will have it changed.
http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11463.pdf
Page 12 quotes a figure of 15% for US undergraduates in Science/Engineering.
IV core members can you please clarify? If it is incorrect then we need to correct the document before some one points out the flaw.
brb2, Thanks for pointing it out. Actually the figure of 15% makes our case stronger. We will have it changed.
hairstyles Florida Map
sanjay
01-12 11:00 AM
Suvendra, sent you a private message. Kindly check.
immilaw
12-08 09:03 AM
[QUOTE=gc03]Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) 3rd-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: gregg.senate.gov
Washington Office:
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2904
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
Main District Office:
125 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 225-7115
*************************
Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH) 1st-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: sununu.senate.gov
E-mail: mailbox@sununu.senate.gov
Washington Office:
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Main District Office:
1589 Elm St., Ste. 3
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 647-7500
Fax: (603) 647-9352
*************************
Representative Charles Bass (R-NH 2nd) 6th-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: www.house.gov/bass
E-mail: cbass@mail.house.gov
Washington Office:
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2902
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946
Main District Office:
142 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 226-0249
Fax: (603) 226-0476
=========================
Just called all 3 senators and asked to Support the High-Skilled Immigrant Interim Relief Act of 2006
Very EASY.[/QUOTE
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
Contact Information
Web Site: gregg.senate.gov
Washington Office:
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2904
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
Main District Office:
125 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 225-7115
*************************
Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH) 1st-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: sununu.senate.gov
E-mail: mailbox@sununu.senate.gov
Washington Office:
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Main District Office:
1589 Elm St., Ste. 3
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 647-7500
Fax: (603) 647-9352
*************************
Representative Charles Bass (R-NH 2nd) 6th-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: www.house.gov/bass
E-mail: cbass@mail.house.gov
Washington Office:
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2902
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946
Main District Office:
142 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 226-0249
Fax: (603) 226-0476
=========================
Just called all 3 senators and asked to Support the High-Skilled Immigrant Interim Relief Act of 2006
Very EASY.[/QUOTE
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
qplearn
11-20 08:05 PM
The email id for 60 minutes is:
60m@cbsnews.com
After sending email, put a post here so we know how many emails have gone.
60m@cbsnews.com
After sending email, put a post here so we know how many emails have gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment