Vs 122 Form Texas: Fill & Download for Free

In the US, each state has a registry of Vital Statistics; by that or some similar name. That will be the agency you will need to apply to, and they will tell you what the requirements are in your state.In my state, Texas, I found the requirements here:https://www.dshs.texas.gov/vs/delayed/default.shtmWhat we are talking about is a “Delayed Certificate of Birth Registration”Your area will almost certainly be different, but perhaps in only minor ways. This may give you a general idea.The general Texas instructions as found on the above website:Delayed Certificate of Birth RegistrationIf a birth occurring in this state is not officially registered within the first year, a Delayed Certificate of Birth may be requested through the Texas Vital Statistics office.The procedures for filing a Delayed Certificate of Birth:A formal search must first be conducted to determine that the birth record is not on file. Submit an application or written request for a certified copy of the birth certificate, along with the fee of $22.00 to Vital Statistics in Austin.( For information on how to do this, please go to www.dshs.state.tx.us/vs/reqproc/certified_copy.shtm )If a birth record is found, Vital Statistics will send a certified copy of the record. If record is not found, Vital Statistics will provide forms and instructions for filing a Delayed Certificate of Birth. Vital Statistics will retain the $22.00 as a search fee.When accepted for filing, the Delayed Certificate of Birth form (VS-122) will become the original birth certificate. It must be completed neatly and legibly, signed before a notary public, and submitted along with the necessary supporting documentation to Vital Statistics in Austin. There are several acceptable forms of documentation, and they are explained in detail in the instructions provided. The cost for filing a Delayed Certificate of Birth is $25.00. Certified copies of the Delayed Certificate of Birth are $22.00 each.Supporting Documentation must be verified by Vital Statistics staff, sometimes with outside entities such as schools, churches, etc. Because of this requirement, the processing time generally takes 8 to 10 weeks.If the supporting documentation is not sufficient to file the Delayed Certificate of Birth, processing time could take several more weeks.Suggested types of supporting documents must show name, date of birth, and place of birth.Note: Please submit ALL original documentation. All originals will be returned after filling is completed. Any supporting document(s) submitted found to be fraudulent will cause immediate denial of application for filing a delayed certificate of birth and those documents will then be retained.Birth Certificate of Adult Children (18 years or older)School Enrollment Record/TranscriptMilitary Discharge Record (DD214)Marriage or Divorce Records*Social Security Application (Do not send the Social Security Card)*Baptismal Certificate OriginalSelective Service RecordVoter's Registration ApplicationHospital RecordApplication for Driver's LicenseApplication for State Issued ID*Affidavit of Birth Facts (sent with the Delayed Certificate packet) Signed by a parent, grandparent, or older brother or sister*Types of documents that might show parent's names.Requirements for filing a Delayed Certificate of Birth (VS-122) form.For children over 1 year of age but less than 4 years of age.For children between 4 and 15 years of age.For children 15 years of age and older.

I really don’t think so. In 2016, Trump received 52.33% of the popular vote compared to Clinton’s 43.24%. Clinton did well mostly in the southern and western part of the state and n the bigger cities.In the 2016 Primary, 2.8 million Republicans voted vs. 1.4 million Democrats. Even if the Democrats gained 20% of those Republican voters, that still puts them at 1.96 million vs. 2.24 million Republicans.The demographics are changing in favor of changing the state back to Blue, but not in 2020. It’s claimed that Texas will have a majority Hispanic population by 2022, but that includes children. 2024 just might see the State turn Blue and if Democrats consistently win Texas, California and New York, currently a total of 122 electoral votes, it’s going to be almost impossible for Republicans to win the presidency for a very long time unless the Democrats manage to run some awful candidates.

"Fully ergativity-Absolutive not split ergativity"...there is no widely accepted fully Ergative-Absolutive language. Some people say both Basque and Tagalog are fully ergative-absolutive, but these viewpoints are somewhat controversial.There might not be a single language on the planet that fits your requirement.Fully nominative-accusative languages are also rare. In English for example, we have a few lexical items that contrast between an agentive subject and an experiencer subject (see vs look, listen vs hear).There is also a lot of debate surrounding ergative-absolutive languages. Many linguists disagree on whether some languages are primarily ergative-absolutive or not. Edith Aldridge for example, argues that Tagalog is ergative-absolutive with a demonstrable anti-passive voice, while Paul Schachter claims that Tagalog doesn't have "subjects", but is "unconvinced" of ergativity.By implication of Edith Aldridge's analysis, Tagalog could be fully Ergative-Absolutive, as the only instance of split-ergativity she describes as the "antipassive voice".My opinion is that Tagalog is primarily ergative-absolutive, but I remain unconvinced of its antipassive voice.* I think it is Ergative-Absolutive, but with 3 active voices, which is essentially what the "Austronesian Alignment" is. The unmarked alignment is clearly Ergative-Absolutive.Tagalog (73 million speakers) is one of the languages that most conserves that feature, but other languages in the Philippines, and Malagasy (18 million speakers) does as well.The languages most commonly argued to be the "closest" to "fully" (using both terms very ironically because they are very subjective in my opinion) Ergative-Absolutive are Basque, and Dyirbal.In Dyirbal pretty much everything except for first and second person pronouns, has ergative-absolutive morphological marking. It seems to be syntactically ergative-absolutive everywhere. Coordination between clauses seems to be always ergative-absolutive (it always revolves around an Absolutive Pivot):data from Aldridge (2007):[Νuma yabu-Νgu buran] [banaganyu]father-ABS mother-ERG saw returned"mother saw father, and he returned"In Basque, there seems to be general morphological and syntactic ergativity throughout, except for weird things going on with the progressive aspect. Traditionally, the progressive aspect has been analyzed as nominative-accusative in Basque, essentially split-ergativity.There are some arguments for full ergativity. Laka (2006) argues that the progressive aspect is still ergative-absolutive, and forms a weird biclausal structure not related to ergativity. Laka (2006) compares it to Welsh, Dutch, and Middle English usage of prepositions to form the progressive aspect (e.g. M.E. "I am on running"=I am running; to be would be an unaccusative verb in Basque, so the subject would not be marked ergative in the first place)."The apparent “case split” we find in ari-progressives in Basque is the result of their biclausal syntactic structure: ari is an unaccusative verb, and it heads the main clause, which contains a nominalized clause. The fact that ari is unaccusative explains why its argument receives absolutive case. In fact, these progressive sentences are not instances of agents being assigned absolutive or nominative case; rather, they are themes, and as such they are assigned absolutive. In this sense, then, the so-called ari-construction is not an instance of split ergativity in Basque." (p. 191).So Laka (2006) essentially argues, by implication, that Basque is 100% ergative-absolutive. It has somewhere between 550,000 and 720,000 speakers. Dyirbal has like 15 speakers at best (probably less since the last number was counted in 2005).If you are willing to accept a not so widely accepted instance of full ergativity, then Basque and Tagalog* are the only one I know people make claims of being fully ergative. I doubt Tagalog is fully ergative-absolutive (see *), but if you accept that viewpoint then Tagalog is the most spoken fully ergative-absolutive language at 73 million speakers.References:Aldridge, E. (2012). Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua, 122(3), 192-203.ChicagoAldridge, E. (2007). Case in ergative languages and NP split-ergativity. Texas Linguistic Society IX: The Morphosyntax of Underrepresented Languages, 1.Laka, I. (2006). Deriving split ergativity in the progressive. In Ergativity (pp. 173-195). Springer Netherlands.Schachter, P. (1996). The subject in Tagalog: still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers In Linguistics (Vol. 15). University of California Los Angeles.*I disagree with Aldridge (2012)'s analysis of the anti-passive voice. She claims that mag- is derived from <um>-pag and that both are intransitive with oblique marked.I agree that the <in> transitive verbs are the default... well here are some basic Tagalog sentences to set up my arguments. This is where I agree with Aldridge (2012) on:(1)Na-sa puno ang sagingPRED-in tree ABS banana"the banana is in the tree"(2)k<in>ain ng aso ang saging<perf>eat ERG dog ABS banana"the dog ate the banana"You see the banana in 1 and 2 is case marked the same way.(3)mabuti ang estudyantegood ABS student"the student is good"(4)<in>aral ng estudyante ang kasaysayan<perf>study ERG student ABS history"the student studied history"In (3) and (4) you see the student case marked differently.This is pretty much a textbook case of ergativity.You could also say:(5)K<um>ain ang aso ng saging<perf>eat ABS dog ERG rice~NOM dog ACC banana"the dog at some banana (emphasizing dog; de-focusing banana)"(6)nag-aral ang estudyante ng kasaysayanperf-study ABS student ERG history~NOM student ACC history"the student studied some history"5 and 6 are highly marked. Aldridge says essentially, that kumain is really intransitive (so are any mag- verbs) and that this is the antipassive voice. The ng in "ng saging" in 3 may look identical to the ng in 2, but Aldridge thinks that ng is oblique rather than Absolutive.Here is where her analysis runs into trouble. Aldridge (2012) did not bring this up, but there are minimal pairs between <um> and mag- where the difference is clearly transitive intransitive:(7)L<um>abas ang asoperf-outside ABS dog"the dog went outside"(8)Nag-labas ang aso ng sagingperf-outside ABS dog ERG rice~NOM ACC"the dog took the banana outside"(9)*nag-labas ang asoperf-outside ABS dog*"the dog took outside"7 and 8 mean different things; one is intransitive and the other is obligatorily transitive. 9 is highly ungrammatical. This would not be expected if mag-/nag- was derived from <um>, and mag- and <um> were antipassive. Obligatory transitivity should never happen in any type of passive or antipassive voice.Thus... I do not think we can call Tagalog 100% ergative-absolutive. This looks more like two different active voices: one ergative-absolutive (the unmarked) and the other nominative-accusative (the marked).There is also an indirect-object voice where the indirect object is marked with ang and the other constituents with ng:b<in>igy-an ng estudyante ang aso ng pagkain<perf>give-Ind-Obj-Focus ERG student ABS dog ERG food"to the dog, the student gave food"This focuses on the indirect object. If it were as simple as ng=ERG and ang=ABS then this would make no sense.I do think there is obvious syntactic ergativity, but morphologically, the situation is more complex.