Sgt. McGee

Playing dumb or do you just not know that it doesn't take a majority in the Senate to prevent a bill to come up for a vote?

Neither.

But it wasn't 59-41, was it?

Who didn't "fall in line", eh?

The GOP is defunding the military. Awesome. And I thought it was health care reform they were looking to defund.

You mean with that majority they have right now in the Senate? Or the other 1.5 branches of the government they also control right now?

Yes - we can stop all tax revenue and it won't have any bearing on the deficit. Have you tried that with your own checking account?

Technically, it will only have an effect if spending isn't cut by at least equal measure. But then, that's too obvious, right?

Same here, and we're at Fairfax, but still Washington, D.C.

We're actually a week ahead of you most of the timeline, so I hope that it means we'll hear before you! (no offense!)

We got our interview appointment! January 10th!

Oddly, our online case status doesn't show any touches on the 485 since November 5 (which is when it first showed up, on the day she did her biometrics). Letter came today.

Now, we just need to figure out if we need to do anything about the fact that she's never filed tax returns. They probably would have sent an RFE is it was a problem, right?

Oh my god, you do almond crescents? Is it basically those butter and sugar cookies that you mix up with chopped almonds? I do the same thing, except with cashews. I've never met anyone else who has ever done them. They have got to be the yummiest cookie ever!

J-

My wife does something similar, but Czech-style. Here's a recipe (in Czech): http://www.varimezdrave.cz/vanilkove-rohlicky-bez-cukru

In English (different recipe - she's already asleep, and I don't want to bother her to get her actual recipe... Maybe tomorrow...): http://easteuropeanfood.about.com/od/bohemianczechdesserts/r/vanilla-crescents.htm

She always makes them early, and lets them sit in the fridge (in a container - back home, they'd put them out on the balcony, but our weather is not as predictably cold here) for 3 weeks or so. It actually does improve them.

Congrats! Pretty impressive how quickly your interview went!

We're still waiting on the interview letter and hope to see it in the mail soon. No touches on our case since the EAD was approved.

Same here, and we're at Fairfax, but still Washington, D.C.

We're actually a week ahead of you most of the timeline, so I hope that it means we'll hear before you! (no offense!)

I have a major in music, a minor in French, and I hold a job as an I.T. Director (which I'm happy with). Getting a job "in your field" may not be practical for everyone, everywhere, every time. The bigger issue is the notion that everyone should go to college, rack up this debt, and expect that they'll be able to pay it off afterward.

From the title, I thought maybe this was an IMBRA-related topic...

Why not cut to the chase? Since obviously the intent here is to only allow those who support Tea Party proposals the right to vote, why pussyfoot about Property Ownership or district gerrymandering or other voting restrictions?

Just come right out there and say what you mean: the vote should be given only to registered GOP voters, take it away from Democrats or Independents. Better yet - give it only to voters who agree to vote strictly for Tea Party candidates.

Heck, we can save even more time and money by abolishing any competitive parties or ideologies and having only Tea Party candidates on the ballot. It works in totalitarian governments so why not here?

Democracy? Choice? Who needs all that. The Tea Party already has all the answers, elections are just a periodic formality to reaffirm this obvious fact. Hear hear. Motion seconded, motion passed.

Please reference the posts that make the case that you've outlined above. I must have missed those.

I seem to remember stating that "only those people that pay federal income tax should be allowed to vote" (paraphrasing myself, but pretty darn close). And, no, Cleo, that doesn't mean to keep poor people from voting. It means "if they don't have any income tax liability, they don't vote". So, if they want to vote, make sure the tax code isn't a means of wealth distribution, giving them more money than they put in.

Those people who pay taxes, and therefore should legitimately be entitled to vote under my scheme, can vote for whomever/whatever they want. But I've had enough of people being able to elect people who promise to force "others" to pay more taxes to let them avoid the pesky nuisance of being self-sufficient.

I would prefer that only people who federal income tax liability be able to vote in general elections. If you pay no tax (or, more accurately, if you have zero or negative liability, meaning that you get your entire withheld amount (or more) back every year), you shouldn't have ANY say in how the government's setting things up.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I want people to be disenfranchised, but maybe we should make sure everyone pays federal income tax...

Anyone received an interview letter yet??

Looking at this page (https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplayInit.do) and selecting Washington, DC, shows that as of Sept 30th, they were processing mid-May. If that trend holds (and the info is accurate), it seems they should be hitting August filers in December-ish. Of course, there are a lot of assumptions being made there, and the fact that the page says it was "posted" on November 22 but the date is as of September, makes me wonder if that's even worthwhile to look at...

Concurrent I-130/485 have been taking about 3-4 months start to finish. They will adjudicate your 130 and 485 at your interview, and your EAD and AP will be approved without interview beforehand. You can also read the April or May filers thread for a lot of timelines. Good luck!

We're about 4 months in (minus a week or two), and have heard nothing beyond the EAD (which, to be fair, is "something"). What is the official processing time for a concurrent filing? The USCIS page on processing times doesn't have an option for the 485 spousal filing (only refugees, asylum, etc).

Is there somewhere to see the target processing times for concurrent filers?

That's because our federal government has begun to think of themselves as a national government...

Ah. Well, all of my updates are there, but we're not k1.

It's hard to tell where the stuff actually lives, especially when I use the "new content" button to check the site (not digging through individual fora).

(I know now that I can look at the "breadcrumb" on the top of the page, but even that seems hard to find if you don't know where to look)

There's another August filers thread that sees more traffic (not sure if there's a difference between the two): http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/267889-august-2010-filers/

(also - )

One would expect an even more intrusive visit to the Gynecologist would be a problem as well.

Good point. Those are EXACTLY the same scenario.

TSA = Random person with force of law behind them touching where they wish

OB/GYN = carefully chosen medical doctor with potential for lawsuits, etc, conducting a voluntary medical examination

Yep. Good parallel.

You don't need to have EVERY account together. I'm sure USCIS understands the needs to have separate savings account and even separate normal accounts (like for buying each other pressies and not using joint funds).

What you've done seems more than fine to me. They just want to see that you have trust in each other by sharing money or access to money and it looks like you've done that easily.

Thanks! I was hoping reason would prevail, but so much of this process seems like tweaking our natural relationship patterns to make sure it looks like someone else thinks it should, and seeing advice on the site had me worried that we wouldn't be "checklist-compliant" enough!

My wife and I each have a savings and a checking account that were started separately, and then we also have a savings account (at a different institution) that we opened together.

Yesterday, we added each other to the our respective checking accounts (lots of transactional activity out of those, as you might expect), but not to our individual savings account(s). The joint savings account has virtually no activity, as we opened it with wedding gift money that we plan to use for big purchases (furniture for the house, our honeymoon once her AOS is complete, etc).

I've seen a lot of references to the fact that a lack of shared/comingled financial resources can be an issue for AOS, but we had planned to keep our finances (in the "bank account" sense) largely independent. I do pay her health insurance (medical, dental, vision) and car insurance (we have a shared policy) as well as a few other things, and submitted those with our paperwork. I bought the house before we were even engaged, so the mortgage is in my name alone, as are the utility bills.

Should we take the extra step of adding each other to the savings accounts, or will that be OK? The savings accounts see very little activity, other than routine deposits. I can't remember the last time I took anything out of savings (which, in this case, is a good thing!). I just want to be sure we won't be in for a rough ride when we FINALLY get to our interview...

Thoughts?

Yay! Glad it went well! RayeRaye, I wouldn't worry too much - we waited forever for biometrics too (same office). Our lawyer said all his AOS cases are taking 2-2.5 months to get biometrics letters right now.

Did he say anything about how long after that for the rest of the AOS? I'm hoping we're close to an interview...

I flew home from a business trip a few weeks ago, only to discover that I'd had a cigarette lighter and several books of matches in my carry-on. I don't smoke, but had purchased the lighter at a convenience store to open bottles of beer (they didn't have any bottle openers), and the matchbooks were from a few restaurants we visted on the trip. Not being used to carrying a lighter, it didn't even cross my mind that I might have it with me...

If I can do that ACCIDENTALLY without it being picked up on an x-ray or anything, imagine how successful you could be if you were trying to hide something!

Yes, its normal, it means they havent yet started on your case. Im also waiting, for UCSIS to update it on their website. I think they are like 3 months behind in schedule.

I don't think it means that. It just means they haven't updated the site.

The question remains how this upstanding American will be able to look at himself in the mirror every morning without hating himself for allowing himself to become a dependent of the oh so evil federal government he so vehemently opposes. Principles only go so far, I guess...

Ah, you mean not taking benefits from his lawful employer?

That's a lot different than expecting "something for nothing".

Do they make too much? Yes. Is it ridiculous that they get pensions like they do? Yes. Should those things be changed? Yes.

But to pretend that a guy should give up his employment-based health insurance because he doesn't think that the federal government should be providing health insurance to the entire country is a bit silly.

Is he actually an employee?

That's where his paycheck will come from, so yes. I don't even understand that question as a sarcastic tactic...

Anyone surprised here? It's really the same as the GOPers that opposed the stimulus bill to then tout the projects and jobs in their districts that the bill funded.

So you don't want health care from your employer?

This isn't some dude sitting at home, you know. He will be (starting on the day he's sworn in) employed by the government.

It's a little confusing. The "timeline" that you enter data for isn't the stuff that shows at the bottom of a post. That's just their signature (edited under the profile settings). The actual timeline is a link by your screen name.