rameshk75
04-07 10:20 AM
Ron's answer for "Leavng petitioning employer after the I485 approval?"
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4764
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4764
wallpaper 2011 2011 A Year Without Rain
vasa
07-08 04:43 PM
5 stars and posted comments..good job dude
txh1b
08-20 04:35 PM
The whole concept of democracy is taxation with representation.
Democracy gives votes for the citizens. You aren't even close to being one to even speak up. You are still an Alien. If you don't like it, feel free to be a citizen of the country that you are from.
Just because you pay tax, no one is answerable from the government to you, forget an apology. Taxation has got nothing to do with your right to vote. Right to vote is what is important in a democracy so that if the majority of the people don't like what is happening, they can make the change happen by their vote when the time comes.
Apology from USCIS???? For what? USCIS is just an agency. They do not even make the laws. They just process the applications as per the law.
Democracy gives votes for the citizens. You aren't even close to being one to even speak up. You are still an Alien. If you don't like it, feel free to be a citizen of the country that you are from.
Just because you pay tax, no one is answerable from the government to you, forget an apology. Taxation has got nothing to do with your right to vote. Right to vote is what is important in a democracy so that if the majority of the people don't like what is happening, they can make the change happen by their vote when the time comes.
Apology from USCIS???? For what? USCIS is just an agency. They do not even make the laws. They just process the applications as per the law.
2011 selena gomez year without rain
mmaxima
08-21 04:24 PM
From http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=25
"The annual limit for EB visa numbers is 140,000. This number also includes the dependents of an EB applicant. In addition there is a per-country limit set at 7% of the total."
That's provided that India gets 7%. ROW is in retrogression as well. The visa number is divided among all country. 7% rule only apply when visa number is abundant otherwise it's shared.
"The annual limit for EB visa numbers is 140,000. This number also includes the dependents of an EB applicant. In addition there is a per-country limit set at 7% of the total."
That's provided that India gets 7%. ROW is in retrogression as well. The visa number is divided among all country. 7% rule only apply when visa number is abundant otherwise it's shared.
more...
spicy_guy
04-07 11:49 AM
Tech firms warn of impacts of tight visa quota - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tech-firms-warn-of-impacts-of-tight-visa-quota-2011-04-07?siteid=rss&rss=1)
GCEB2
09-20 09:13 PM
sri1309..Thanks for your reply but can we get homes for 300 to 400 k there. How about bay area
more...
prabirmehta
04-17 12:04 PM
I don't know when exactly your case was filed. I was originally planning to file mine in summer 2005 but my attorney mentioned that there were a lot of errors and delays in the system at that time and recommended I hold off. I ended up filing in December 2005 and got approved in 2 months.
2010 selena gomez year without rain
Ψ
06-11 12:33 AM
http://img62.photobucket.com/albums/v188/_azzy_/Chess_copy.jpg
sorry took soo long here is my next serve. would really like some comments on it
sorry took soo long here is my next serve. would really like some comments on it
more...
arnab221
06-22 04:46 AM
I fail to understand one fundamental statement "We do not have numbers for CIR THIS YEAR" . If they do not have the numbers this year , how will they have magically have numbers the next year and year after that and what hope are the 12 million illegals and 1 million legals sitting on ?
1) The people will not change , not will their opinions over the next 1 year .
2) The Hispanics will not flood into their constituencies in 1 years or even in 5 years and make them change their opinions .
3) What has economy , Iran or energy or healthcare got to do with immigration reform ?
3a) Are they are saying they are so busy is solving these issues that they do not have the time for CIR ? I can at least buy this "No time" logic .
3b) But just because you pretend to be engrossed in solving all the these world problems , why will you not vote for CIR . Either you support CIR or you do not . Why will not vote for CIR if there are other issues this year and will vote if you have no issues next year is beyond my understanding .
1) The people will not change , not will their opinions over the next 1 year .
2) The Hispanics will not flood into their constituencies in 1 years or even in 5 years and make them change their opinions .
3) What has economy , Iran or energy or healthcare got to do with immigration reform ?
3a) Are they are saying they are so busy is solving these issues that they do not have the time for CIR ? I can at least buy this "No time" logic .
3b) But just because you pretend to be engrossed in solving all the these world problems , why will you not vote for CIR . Either you support CIR or you do not . Why will not vote for CIR if there are other issues this year and will vote if you have no issues next year is beyond my understanding .
hair VIDEOS. Selena Gomez - New
tikka
05-31 04:25 PM
100.00 - Google Order #601837695595056
thank you...
thank you...
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
hot hot Selena Gomez and The Scene
viswanadh73
01-07 11:19 AM
can Employer with draw Approved I-140 if they want after 180 days of pending 485 if any body changes his/her job with out notifying USCIS(AC21).
thanks for your replies.
thanks for your replies.
more...
house SG -A Year Without Rain Deluxe
sbdol
07-29 02:07 AM
My thinking is that this mad rush of dates being current, should not have much effect on the retrogression in Oct 07, because either way most of us will get green cards only after date becomes current....granted we'll get EAD and AP.....Since last retrogression for EB-2 was April 04, my guess is going to be somewhere like Jan 04.........Please share ur thoughts....
You would agree that the majority of the July gold rush comes from two sources:
1. Those who waited till their PD becomes current.
2. Those whose labor certification after many years (5-6) finally was cleared by DOL.
The group one should not push the retrogression worse than what was before the beginning of the years simply because of the fact they they were retrogressed means their PD is not very old.
The group two can affect the visa bulleting significantly. In many cases DOL worked upside down clearing the oldest PD the last. The bulk of the cases comes from the infamous 2001 amnesty for illegals when approximately 240,000 application completely clogged DOL. I do not know how many of those 240,000 still around - if we admit 50,000 that means 100,000 green cards = cutoff date for EB3 may go back to 2002.
You would agree that the majority of the July gold rush comes from two sources:
1. Those who waited till their PD becomes current.
2. Those whose labor certification after many years (5-6) finally was cleared by DOL.
The group one should not push the retrogression worse than what was before the beginning of the years simply because of the fact they they were retrogressed means their PD is not very old.
The group two can affect the visa bulleting significantly. In many cases DOL worked upside down clearing the oldest PD the last. The bulk of the cases comes from the infamous 2001 amnesty for illegals when approximately 240,000 application completely clogged DOL. I do not know how many of those 240,000 still around - if we admit 50,000 that means 100,000 green cards = cutoff date for EB3 may go back to 2002.
tattoo Selena Gomez amp; The Scene:
bluez25
08-26 02:57 PM
Category EB2
LC PD: FEB-2006
LC AD: Mar-2006
I-140 FD: 23-May-2006
I-140 RD/ND: 25-May-2006
I-140 LUD: 29-July-2006
I-140 RFE : 15 November 2006
I-140 Responded: 14 December 2006
I-140 AD: 11 Jan 2007
DS 230 Received in April 2007
DS 230 Submitted to NVC in May 2007
NVC forwarded the case to Chennai on June 5th 2007
chennai appointment August 11th
POE August 20th
Completed and waiting for the GC card to be mailed.
LC PD: FEB-2006
LC AD: Mar-2006
I-140 FD: 23-May-2006
I-140 RD/ND: 25-May-2006
I-140 LUD: 29-July-2006
I-140 RFE : 15 November 2006
I-140 Responded: 14 December 2006
I-140 AD: 11 Jan 2007
DS 230 Received in April 2007
DS 230 Submitted to NVC in May 2007
NVC forwarded the case to Chennai on June 5th 2007
chennai appointment August 11th
POE August 20th
Completed and waiting for the GC card to be mailed.
more...
pictures tattoo selena gomez year
hebron
08-10 10:15 AM
Suggestions....anybody? ^^^^
dresses selena gomez a year without
xela
06-14 11:56 AM
I just checked on my service request and after 2 weeks they still have not done anything, no updates on case no fp notice nothing since April 30th...and here they received it on April 16th....
I am not sure i need a fp notice, I simply hoped that they would look at the EAd if I put in a service request, because they have been sitting on it
I also was told by this lady that the 90 days turnaround of EADs is just an estimate and I need to wait 45 days for a response on my service request....well i am on 60 days for EAd now so 60 plus 45 thats 105 and I cannot afford them messing around this long!!!!!
:confused:
I am not sure i need a fp notice, I simply hoped that they would look at the EAd if I put in a service request, because they have been sitting on it
I also was told by this lady that the 90 days turnaround of EADs is just an estimate and I need to wait 45 days for a response on my service request....well i am on 60 days for EAd now so 60 plus 45 thats 105 and I cannot afford them messing around this long!!!!!
:confused:
more...
makeup selena gomez a year without
martinvisalaw
02-23 06:10 PM
so assuming all goes well i would be protected from deportation from the time of filing until decisions are made?
No necessarily protected. Anyone who overstays their I-94 is removable (deportable). However, some people can contest that in removal proceedings. One basis to contest a removal order is because the foreign national is married to a US citizen and/or has an Adjustment of Status pending.
The problem with VWP entrants is that they sign away their rights to contest a removal order, even if married to a US citizen (unless they claim asylum). Worse - they can be removed without a hearing in immigration court, simply by an order of the local District Director. In theory, a VWP entrant who overstayed could file for permanent residence and be issued a removal order and put in detention when s/he turned up for the marriage interview at the District Office.
I don't mean to terrify you, and most district offices do approve cases filed by VWP entrants, but please check with a local attorney before filing anything.
__________________
No necessarily protected. Anyone who overstays their I-94 is removable (deportable). However, some people can contest that in removal proceedings. One basis to contest a removal order is because the foreign national is married to a US citizen and/or has an Adjustment of Status pending.
The problem with VWP entrants is that they sign away their rights to contest a removal order, even if married to a US citizen (unless they claim asylum). Worse - they can be removed without a hearing in immigration court, simply by an order of the local District Director. In theory, a VWP entrant who overstayed could file for permanent residence and be issued a removal order and put in detention when s/he turned up for the marriage interview at the District Office.
I don't mean to terrify you, and most district offices do approve cases filed by VWP entrants, but please check with a local attorney before filing anything.
__________________
girlfriend selena gomez a year without
i4u
07-28 08:57 AM
Thanks for your response. I have not tried the infopass yet. But my PD is not current and will that be an issue for scheduling an Infopass apointment.
Also, is Infopass same as Service Request (SR).
Service Request is for those who are waiting for more than 90 days for check clearance or to report a problem. Also check IV wikki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Technical_Terms_on_US_Immigration)
Also, is Infopass same as Service Request (SR).
Service Request is for those who are waiting for more than 90 days for check clearance or to report a problem. Also check IV wikki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Technical_Terms_on_US_Immigration)
hairstyles selena gomez a year without
fromnaija
09-14 01:26 PM
This issue was previously discussed here. In that thread I do not agree with user frostrated who stated that he reentered with an AP that was approved while he was outside the US. That may well be the case but I believe if CBP agents at the port of entry were vigilant he would have been refused entry.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum77-work-travel-options-after-485-h1-versus-ead-ap/1599409-parole-question-based-on-murthy-com.html#post1975354
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum77-work-travel-options-after-485-h1-versus-ead-ap/1599409-parole-question-based-on-murthy-com.html#post1975354
kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 01:23 PM
I would suggest Jonty, not to waste your time. I posted the question in general. It wasn't specific to you. If anybody is free and feels like, they can answer.:rolleyes::cool::cool::cool:
FredG
April 4th, 2005, 06:28 AM
Trying something comparable to double processing, but without the original, I selected the sky, copied the layer, and changed the blend mode to multiply. I then inverted the selection, copied the original layer again, and changed that mode to screen. That made the sky colors richer and the mountains lighter. (didn't post, as my selection was quick and dirty, not at all precise) The beauty of doing it as dual raw conversion rather than this way is there is no destruction of pixels in the process.
Did you know that you can make cash by locking selected areas of your blog / site?
ReplyDeleteTo start just open an account on AdscendMedia and implement their content locking tool.