sparuthi
01-07 06:02 PM
I have a question for the gurus. I have my GC application in process- priority date March 2006, EB2 I. When the application started my wife was on H4.
Now my wife is on H1B, and her employer has asked if she would like to have her GC processing done. Question is that can she get her application started and can I be the beneficiary on her application. The rationale behind this thought process is that considering the economic conditions, is this a safety net that one can use?
Prompt responses are appreciated
Thanks
Sid
Now my wife is on H1B, and her employer has asked if she would like to have her GC processing done. Question is that can she get her application started and can I be the beneficiary on her application. The rationale behind this thought process is that considering the economic conditions, is this a safety net that one can use?
Prompt responses are appreciated
Thanks
Sid
wallpaper Virtual.HairStyle Fab is an
prakgc
07-22 09:01 PM
When we file 485 AOS along with EAD & APL, these are three seperate forms, so we get three seperate receipt numbers?
is that correct?
What abt 485 for wife? is that also another receipt notice?
is that correct?
What abt 485 for wife? is that also another receipt notice?
jonty_11
07-06 01:10 PM
u cannever get that kind of stuff done even with ur phone company... Changing address is kind of banned in any US system....
I got mine changed for my Canadian Pr application via email...
I got mine changed for my Canadian Pr application via email...
2011 Picture of Virtual Hairstyle
sri2005_05
08-12 10:34 PM
Hi,
I would like to know can i change employer after my i-140 got approved.My i-140 got approved 6 months back and i have h1 until next year
I would like to know can i change employer after my i-140 got approved.My i-140 got approved 6 months back and i have h1 until next year
more...
marcus12
01-31 08:37 PM
Hello friends
I am thinking of taking these semester off because of my health issue
I had decided to attend classes and booked my ticket in April to my country. I am an international student
So I was thinking how many months I can stay in USA after I take a semester break
Also if I take these spring break off and than the summer break is off by default so will it be a problem if I am not in status for 7 months?
Please let me know
I am thinking of taking these semester off because of my health issue
I had decided to attend classes and booked my ticket in April to my country. I am an international student
So I was thinking how many months I can stay in USA after I take a semester break
Also if I take these spring break off and than the summer break is off by default so will it be a problem if I am not in status for 7 months?
Please let me know
tommui
06-24 09:51 PM
Hi
it seems most/all of multimedia jobs are project-based/short term/freelanced, is there any multimedia permanent job which you can sit in a fix studio to work on, maybe 5 days a week, just like some administration/office fulltime position (e.g. clark/marketing person).
Work in some multimedia comp/film company maybe one of the solution, anyone could give me more ideas/suggestions & I dont know which multimedia/film is the big one / famous...:puzzle:
Thks
Tom
it seems most/all of multimedia jobs are project-based/short term/freelanced, is there any multimedia permanent job which you can sit in a fix studio to work on, maybe 5 days a week, just like some administration/office fulltime position (e.g. clark/marketing person).
Work in some multimedia comp/film company maybe one of the solution, anyone could give me more ideas/suggestions & I dont know which multimedia/film is the big one / famous...:puzzle:
Thks
Tom
more...
Blog Feeds
08-21 10:20 AM
ICE has announced sentencing in two cases related to visa fraud. Houston immigration lawyer Kenneth Rothey has been sentenced to fourteen months in prison for money laundering and visa fraud. Rothey was convicted for his role in securing L-1 visas based on manufactured corporate relationships. ICE also announced the sentencing of Kwan Tsoi to nineteen months in prison for her role in arranging fraudulent marriages and then submitting immigration applications based on the marriages.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/immigration-lawyer-and-notario-sentenced-in-visa-fraud-cases.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/immigration-lawyer-and-notario-sentenced-in-visa-fraud-cases.html)
2010 Makeup, Virtual Hairstyle
sanhari
11-19 04:36 PM
Legal immigrants and visa recapture in the dream act
"http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=19787501"
"http://immigrationvoice.capwiz.com/immigrationvoice/issues/alert/?alertid=19787501"
more...
amsh
06-13 12:16 AM
Hi All ,
I remember last time when PD became current USCIS did not follow the correct order /sequence of PD while allocating visa numbers .
Many of the people who had PD of 2006 got Visa number allocation before people who were in queue ahead of them with 2004/2005 PD.
This time we should have some campaign may be by sending the letter or some way to USCIS/DOS and make them aware to allocate visa based on PD in a fair and transparent way.Any suggestions ????
This opportunity has come after many many years for many of us, we should make our best effort that visa number allocation are done in a fair and transparent way for coming month and month's to come.
Best regards,
amsh
I remember last time when PD became current USCIS did not follow the correct order /sequence of PD while allocating visa numbers .
Many of the people who had PD of 2006 got Visa number allocation before people who were in queue ahead of them with 2004/2005 PD.
This time we should have some campaign may be by sending the letter or some way to USCIS/DOS and make them aware to allocate visa based on PD in a fair and transparent way.Any suggestions ????
This opportunity has come after many many years for many of us, we should make our best effort that visa number allocation are done in a fair and transparent way for coming month and month's to come.
Best regards,
amsh
hair Virtual Hairstyle Generator
sac-r-ten
08-25 11:30 AM
Contact your state's senators.
Submit Ombudsman form 7001.
info on both things can be found by googling.
good luck.
Submit Ombudsman form 7001.
info on both things can be found by googling.
good luck.
more...
FireDrake101
06-03 08:36 PM
how to make the camera rotate around your animation. For example, if i had a block and it just spun in circles or something and i wanted that to be my animation, what if i wanted the camera to circle around that, so that i whould have a spinning block
hot Hairstyle Virtual Games Games amp; Giveaways. Games; Daily Sweepstakes
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...
house clients with quot;a virtual
muni_k
07-21 11:48 AM
My employer(hospital)filed for the PERM processing and paid the fees for it.It was subsequently approved with an audit.I filed for the I-140 in May 2008.The lawyer who was recommended by the employer did not give me the receipt number,nor the receipt.I was just told that it is pending approval.What are other people's experiences do you usually get a copy of the receipt?I was expecting to get it as I paid for the I-140 filing?I just want it so that I can keep tracking it on the uscis website.
Thanks.
Thanks.
tattoo Virtual Pool 3
Blog Feeds
04-13 01:10 PM
Vilcek's artist of the year award recipient is Spaniard Jos� Andr�s. He's the well known Washington, DC chef. The foundation describes his contribution: Deemed a "food philosopher" by NPR and dubbed "Mr. Spain" by the culinary vanguard, Chef Andr�s's emphasis on the link between culture and cuisine reflects the Vilcek Foundation's values of enriching American society through the infusion of immigrant culture and talent. Chef Andr�s is the founder of ThinkFoodGroup, which operates groundbreaking restaurants such as Jaleo and minibar by jos� andr�s in Washington D.C., and The Bazaar in Los Angeles. As the Host and Producer of Made in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/immigrant-of-the-day-jose-andres-chef.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/immigrant-of-the-day-jose-andres-chef.html)
more...
pictures virtual hair style and virtual
dpp
07-17 09:45 PM
Senator Durbin amending National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 H.R.1585 with "H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2007".
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02252:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01585:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02252:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01585:
dresses images Virtual hairstyle
Macaca
08-01 08:03 PM
The Speaker In Charge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073101628.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Harold Meyerson (meyersonh@washpost.com), August 1, 2007
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.
In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.
"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.
"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"
It can't always be thus. Her biggest frustration, of course, is Congress's inability to end the war in Iraq, which she terms "a huge moral catastrophe for the country." It is the public's biggest frustration as well, she says, and the main reason that popular support for Congress has plummeted.
In September, Iraq will once again be Congress's chief item of business, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his state-of-the-war report.
Pelosi (understandably, given the administration's mountain of misrepresentation on all war-related matters) is wary. "The plural of anecdote is not data," she said. "I'm very concerned they'll pass off anecdotal successes as progress in Iraq."
The question in September will be whether congressional Republicans continue to support President Bush's open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq while a civil war rages around them. To date, the Republicans' strategy, and not just on the war, has been to thwart the Democrats at every turn and to use the Senate's 60-vote supermajority requirement both to create a "do-nothing" Congress against which they can run and to spare their president from having to veto popular legislation. (Why they care about sparing Bush -- he will never face voters again; they will -- plunges us into the murk of abnormal psychology.)
The GOP strategy is not without its pitfalls. Republicans have succeeded in tanking Congress's approval ratings, but polls consistently show the public, most importantly in swing districts, preferring Democrats to Republicans. With this week's vote on expanding SCHIP, though, Democrats are convinced that the price of blocking health care for uninsured children is more than many Republicans are willing to pay. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation; Pelosi, noting with an almost incredulous glee that the administration will stand athwart children's health care on the grounds of opposing a higher tobacco tax, says, simply, "Welcome to this discussion."
Not all discussions, even in a good week, are so pleasurable to anticipate. Asked about the resolution that her congressional colleague Jay Inslee of Washington has introduced to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi put her hands to her temples as if to ward off a headache. For the past year, Pelosi has made clear to her colleagues and the public alike that she has no interest in pursuing the impeachment option, though Gonzales is certainly doing his damnedest to change her mind. She remains unpersuaded, believing that impeachment would fail and in the process would make weeks such as this one -- a week in which the public's business is at last getting done -- far more uncommon than they already are.
Pelosi understands the gravity of the damage that the administration has done to the Constitution and why that has impelled some of her colleagues to advocate impeachment. "If I were not the speaker and I were not in Congress," she said, very quietly, as she concluded her answer, "I would probably be advocating for impeachment." But the consequences she foresees from stopping the nation's business for an unwinnable fight outweighs those considerations.
Pelosi deserves considerable credit for holding her party together on a range of divisive issues, but she plainly views the coming fight among House Democrats on fuel efficiency standards as irrepressible.
The energy bill the House will pass this week contains no provisions that would raise those standards; such provisions, if any, await the outcome of a battle between Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, the Democrat who has represented Detroit and the auto industry in Congress since 1955 (that is, before tailfins).
"I respect all our chairmen," Pelosi said. But the legislation, she continued, isn't about them. "It's about our children's ability to breathe clean air. Nothing less than the planet is at stake. I love him [Dingell] dearly, but we have to prevail. . . . The forces at work here [against stricter standards] are rich and entrenched," she concluded, "and it takes just a few [votes] to prevent us from unleashing the future."
Thus, the most elegant of happy warriors, in a week when it's fun to be speaker.
more...
makeup 2011 Virtual Hairstyle
rausa
10-11 04:14 PM
I am currently working on H1B1 � and my visa is valid till May 2009. The visa on passport (from last employer) is valid till March 2008. We applied for green card through my spouse�s company � our I485 has been applied (His H1B1 is valid till Mar 2008). We both got our Advance Paroles, and he got his EAD � about 5 weeks ago. Though my EAD was also requested at the same time, I have not received mine as yet.
Due to my husband�s job we are moving to another city in November. I plan to resign from my job at the end of November, and go for 6 week vacation to India. I plan to look for a new job (hopefully on with my EAD) when I get back in January 2008. I have following questions:
1. Now when I resign & my H1B1 gets cancelled, what would be my status in USA.
2. Do I need to get back to H4 status to come back to US (or just AP would be enough for POE)
3. Do I need to get back to H4 status to stay in US
Thanks in advance for all help
Due to my husband�s job we are moving to another city in November. I plan to resign from my job at the end of November, and go for 6 week vacation to India. I plan to look for a new job (hopefully on with my EAD) when I get back in January 2008. I have following questions:
1. Now when I resign & my H1B1 gets cancelled, what would be my status in USA.
2. Do I need to get back to H4 status to come back to US (or just AP would be enough for POE)
3. Do I need to get back to H4 status to stay in US
Thanks in advance for all help
girlfriend free virtual hairstyler.
Blog Feeds
07-15 04:40 PM
Thanks to reader Adi for the link. Huffington Post reports on a data compiled by America's Voice showing crime in Arizona dropping dramatically across the state for most of the last decade EXCEPT for the area controlled by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Which goes to show you that facts matter very little to Arizonans buying into the antis arguments.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/sheriff-joes-jurisdiction-only-area-where-crime-is-up-in-arizona.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/07/sheriff-joes-jurisdiction-only-area-where-crime-is-up-in-arizona.html)
hairstyles and make up games. Free
niklshah
09-19 10:58 AM
It was really a proud moment for me and my wife to be part of rally yesterday. I felt really good that i am trying to do something about the situation. Hats off to aman kapoor and other core members who are putting their heart and sould into this fight even though they have their green cards already. As per the message conveyed in rally our real work begins now as we have to educate the congress members about the differance of legal and illegal immigration process. we should also try to involve as many members as possible who were not able to attend the rally due to their personal situation to be active in this education process. again salute to aman kapoor and core member team.
huh
12-09 02:13 PM
My PERM case has been pending for almost 15 months (under audit for 12 months). I asked my attorney about this enquiry thing that you can file to DOL after pending for 15 months (according to this thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21183&page=2)). Her response is that she has been sending requests about case status to the DOL on a regular basis.
Can anyone who's familiar with the matter tell me what's this enquiry is about? Is it just a regular status check or a more formal and serious matter that DOL has to assign a freaking living human to look at your case to reply? :mad:
Can anyone who's familiar with the matter tell me what's this enquiry is about? Is it just a regular status check or a more formal and serious matter that DOL has to assign a freaking living human to look at your case to reply? :mad:
Blog Feeds
01-12 07:40 AM
While many are assuming that the public won't accept immigration reform during this recession, polling numbers tell a different story. America's Voice commissioned recent polling that shows firm support for CIR: Sixty-Five Percent of Respondents Supported Congressional Action on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2010. According to the December poll, 65% of voters prefer for Congress to take up the immigration issue this year rather than wait until later. Sixty-six percent of respondents supported comprehensive immigration reform before even hearing details of the plan. Support for reform continued to cut across party lines, with 69% of Democrats, 67% of independents, and...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/poll-americans-still-firmly-in-favor-of-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/poll-americans-still-firmly-in-favor-of-immigration-reform.html)
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário