Blog Feeds
06-27 02:00 AM
Not surprising, but surprising that Luis would admit it. And if this is the case (and I think it is), then the question is whether we wait until 2011 or later to push again or finally decide it's time to look at other strategies like piecemeal reform (pass DREAM, AgJobs, legal immigration reform now and deal with legalization later) or look at administrative actions like TPS or parole and a moratorium on deportations for people who would otherwise meet the requirements of a proposed legalization program.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/gutierrez-not-enough-dems-to-pass-reform-this-year.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/gutierrez-not-enough-dems-to-pass-reform-this-year.html)
wallpaper Brides HairStyles in UK
newuser
05-24 11:08 AM
There is already a thread opened by pappu.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4646
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4646
ck_b2001
06-08 10:11 AM
I would appreciate some feedback on following situation;
1) My wife is on H4/EAD. She is beneficiary of my AOS application. She holds Master's Degree from US. What is the best option for her to work on?
2) She was on H1B from Oct 2001 to Mar 2003. She COS to H4 after her job terminated with-in weeks. Since then she's been in US (on H4) and never been out for more than couple of months. Can she apply for H1B and not limited to H1B quota and wait till Oct?
3) Would changing to H1B abondon her AOS?
4) Can she work on EAD now and switch to H1B around Oct time if she has to apply for fresh H1B for next yr quota.
4) If she can get H1B, can she still use AP for travel?
6) If i loose job or my 485 is denied, isn't it better she has H1B so i can get on H4 or on her GC application.
Thanks,
1) My wife is on H4/EAD. She is beneficiary of my AOS application. She holds Master's Degree from US. What is the best option for her to work on?
2) She was on H1B from Oct 2001 to Mar 2003. She COS to H4 after her job terminated with-in weeks. Since then she's been in US (on H4) and never been out for more than couple of months. Can she apply for H1B and not limited to H1B quota and wait till Oct?
3) Would changing to H1B abondon her AOS?
4) Can she work on EAD now and switch to H1B around Oct time if she has to apply for fresh H1B for next yr quota.
4) If she can get H1B, can she still use AP for travel?
6) If i loose job or my 485 is denied, isn't it better she has H1B so i can get on H4 or on her GC application.
Thanks,
2011 ride hairstyles.
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
more...
solaris27
07-02 07:39 AM
Hi
I and my wife want to start business ( daycare/pre school) and want to know below details.We both have Green card.
1) Do I need to open LLC or INC for this ?
2) I have home loan so will I get business loan for new property.
3) We already Identify property in our area.
Thanks
I and my wife want to start business ( daycare/pre school) and want to know below details.We both have Green card.
1) Do I need to open LLC or INC for this ?
2) I have home loan so will I get business loan for new property.
3) We already Identify property in our area.
Thanks
gsarkar
01-31 07:00 AM
Dear members,
I want to consult an employment/labor lawyer with regards to an employment agreement that I have signed with a desi consulting company in US. They have sponsored an H1b for me which I am yet to get stamped. I am in India right now and wanted to talk to a Labor lawyer who could tell me the effects of not joining this employer given that there are certain terms and conditions stated in the agreement. Could you suggest me some law firm in US where one can speak to a lawyer on the phone for a reasonable amount of money and seek legal advice.
Thanks
I want to consult an employment/labor lawyer with regards to an employment agreement that I have signed with a desi consulting company in US. They have sponsored an H1b for me which I am yet to get stamped. I am in India right now and wanted to talk to a Labor lawyer who could tell me the effects of not joining this employer given that there are certain terms and conditions stated in the agreement. Could you suggest me some law firm in US where one can speak to a lawyer on the phone for a reasonable amount of money and seek legal advice.
Thanks
more...
ns521
01-12 01:35 AM
I sent the applications(I-140,I-485,I-131,I-765)to Nebraska center 4 weeks ago and it was received by them the next day(because I tracked the FedEx package).Until today,no receipts yet and my checks are not cashed yet and the receipting update says Current for Nebraska, is the normal or there is something wrong?
Thanks
Thanks
2010 Brides HairStyles With Veil6
gc_chahiye
07-25 06:05 PM
/\/\/\/\
more...
Circus123
04-04 11:21 PM
This article is very interesting. The legal immigration dropped even though the applications flooded in last year.
Check these links out!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVzJBVTd1tawK227QQZltW_jigzwD8VRA5JO1
Interesting data statistics:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
Check these links out!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVzJBVTd1tawK227QQZltW_jigzwD8VRA5JO1
Interesting data statistics:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
hair every ride who bears
uma001
08-13 12:39 PM
Wow, EB2 moved to May 2006. Why no discussions on visa bulletin this time.
more...
Humhongekamyab
09-02 02:06 PM
U.S. government seeks $5M in H-1B fraud case (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137317/U.S._government_seeks_5M_in_H_1B_fraud_case)
hot wedding hairstyles deals updos
omeya
08-17 04:33 PM
Bump ....
more...
house indian rides hairstyles
Blog Feeds
05-16 07:40 AM
Youth-led organization United We Dream issued a scathing letter criticizing President Obama for using his recent speech on immigration as the basis for a fundraising ad. This week, President Obama addressed a crowd in El Paso, Texas regarding immigration Reform. DREAMers from across the country watched, waiting, and hoping to see a concrete action plan that would complement the next day�s historic introduction of a bill that would bring relief to the more than 2 million Dreamers that would qualify for the DREAM Act. That same evening, President Obama sent out a fundraising email about his immigration speech. The Obama...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/dream-activists-slam-president-for-fundraising-ad.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/dream-activists-slam-president-for-fundraising-ad.html)
tattoo Brides HairStyles With Veil11
gcwanter
06-21 02:21 PM
I think you can get state id..that has the photo..
more...
pictures Hairstyle with Bride Hair
sidbee
09-04 11:34 AM
because all dates are already booked ;-)
dresses Winter Bride Hairstyles
kondur_007
04-17 10:22 AM
Hello Attorneys,
My company recently moved offices to a new location just a few miles from the old location. Its in an adjacent county but with in the same state. We moved from Northbrook, IL to Deerfield IL, does this warrant a change in LCA/H1B?
Please advise.
Thanks
Most attorneys have historically advised to file ammendment to LCA in case of address change like this. Provided that job conditions same, (which is likely in your case as it is just a few miles away) ammendment should be easy.
Good Luck.
My company recently moved offices to a new location just a few miles from the old location. Its in an adjacent county but with in the same state. We moved from Northbrook, IL to Deerfield IL, does this warrant a change in LCA/H1B?
Please advise.
Thanks
Most attorneys have historically advised to file ammendment to LCA in case of address change like this. Provided that job conditions same, (which is likely in your case as it is just a few miles away) ammendment should be easy.
Good Luck.
more...
makeup Hairstyles – Brides
Blog Feeds
10-18 08:20 AM
Stuart Anderson, one of the top thinkers on immigration policy, has written a new paper for the National Foundation for American Policy entitled "A New Immigrant Entrepreneur Visa Aimed at Job Creation in America". Unlike the EB-5 investor visa, this one would be aimed at encouraging start up businesses that create jobs as opposed to looking stictly at maximizing the dollars invested. Here's the quick summary: In designing the new immigrant visa, the key is to avoid the type of high capital requirements ($500,000 or more) present in the current immigrant investor visa category or other immigration proposals. The average...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/10/nfap-time-for-an-entrepreneur-visa.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/10/nfap-time-for-an-entrepreneur-visa.html)
girlfriend Wedding Hairstyles for Brides,
pd_recapturing
09-15 10:39 PM
I also need to know the answer of this question. Please someone suggest.
hairstyles Curly updo wedding hairstyles
rk2006
08-06 07:30 PM
I applied for AP and EAD renewal in July 2010. I need to go to India by Oct 1st week for some personal work which can not wait beyond that time.
I am planing to expidite my AP if I wont get AP by then. What can I do with my EAD?
- Do I need to be present in US for EAD or I can leave US and ask my friend send EAD to India when it gets approved?
- If I go to India before EAD approval and if I am called for finger printing what are my options? Like, if I dont/cant come by the finger printing appointment date what happens ?
I appreciate for your reply.
I am planing to expidite my AP if I wont get AP by then. What can I do with my EAD?
- Do I need to be present in US for EAD or I can leave US and ask my friend send EAD to India when it gets approved?
- If I go to India before EAD approval and if I am called for finger printing what are my options? Like, if I dont/cant come by the finger printing appointment date what happens ?
I appreciate for your reply.
Karthikthiru
09-23 05:21 PM
Thanks. Easy for doing calculations
satyakb
03-16 08:41 PM
Hi Immigration Voice Team,
I would like to know your advice,
My details are
- EB3 / Labor filed and approved during July/2007
- I140 & I485 filed concurrently during August/2007
- I140 got approved on Jan/16/2009
- EAD Renewal is made and existing one is valid till Nov/2010
I have only labor number, 140 approval notice with me. where as I do not have labor complete job description.
As of now
- Can I change my employer without any labor job description?
- Does my employer has still rights to revoke I140?
- How can I change job to new employer and protect myself from I140 revoke by existing employer?
- GC filing expenses was completely bared by employer only.
Thanks & Regards,
Satyakb
I would like to know your advice,
My details are
- EB3 / Labor filed and approved during July/2007
- I140 & I485 filed concurrently during August/2007
- I140 got approved on Jan/16/2009
- EAD Renewal is made and existing one is valid till Nov/2010
I have only labor number, 140 approval notice with me. where as I do not have labor complete job description.
As of now
- Can I change my employer without any labor job description?
- Does my employer has still rights to revoke I140?
- How can I change job to new employer and protect myself from I140 revoke by existing employer?
- GC filing expenses was completely bared by employer only.
Thanks & Regards,
Satyakb
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário