Pooja
07-06 08:16 AM
Did anyone's I-485 was approved after July 3rd?
Thanks
Thanks
wallpaper 2 of 23. Jennifer
gcfriend65
03-14 10:58 AM
No Employment Soliciting on this website please- it is strictly reserved for Immigration issues and more specifically with Retrogression.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Hello,
I am in a big fix by not getting jobs. I cant find a job in pharma company nor anyone to sponsor me for H1b.I am on H4 visa rightnow and want suggestions for wht i should do to get job and H1b visa. can someone suggest me how should i proceed with this.
thanks
Thanks for your co-operation.
Hello,
I am in a big fix by not getting jobs. I cant find a job in pharma company nor anyone to sponsor me for H1b.I am on H4 visa rightnow and want suggestions for wht i should do to get job and H1b visa. can someone suggest me how should i proceed with this.
thanks
Macaca
09-28 05:27 PM
With Legacy in Mind, Bush Reassesses His Agenda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092702039_2.html?sid=ST2007092801089) By Peter Baker | Washington Post Staff Writer, September 28, 2007
As he addresses a conference on climate change this morning, President Bush will face not only a crowd of skeptics but the press of time. For nearly seven years, he invested little personal energy in the challenge of global warming. Now, with the end in sight, he has called the biggest nations of the world together to press for a plan by the end of next year.
This has been a week when Bush seems to be checking boxes on the legacy list. He opened the week at the United Nations in New York, where he tried to rally support for his Middle East peace initiative and insisted his vision of a new Palestinian state is still "achievable" before the end of his presidency. And he pressed for more U.N. action against Iran, acutely aware he has less than 16 months left to stop Tehran's nuclear program.
Success in any of these areas would amount to a singular achievement and, in the view of advisers, could help rewrite Bush's place in history. No president wants to be remembered as the author of an ill-fated war and, while Iraq certainly will be at the core of the Bush administration's record, advisers hope to broaden the picture. Yet analysts said the hour is late to resolve the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict on his watch, critics doubt his sincerity on climate change, and Iran remains as intransigent as ever.
"The clock is ticking, and there are certain things you want to accomplish before you go out the door," said Ron Kaufman, who was White House political director for President George H.W. Bush. "While most of these things are not new to his agenda, there may be a bit of a new urgency given the time. . . . No president wants to leave something on the table if they can get it done."
Even on Iraq, Bush clearly has an eye on the clock. While he no longer harbors hope of winning the war by Jan. 20, 2009, he wants to use his remaining time in office to stabilize the country, draw down some forces and leave his successor with a less volatile situation that would dampen domestic demands to pull out completely. If he can do that, he told television anchors during an off-the-record lunch this month, he thinks even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, would continue his policy.
The goal, as national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told the Council on Foreign Relations recently, is that "a new president who comes in in January of '09, whoever he or she may be, will look at it and say, 'I'm persuaded that we have long-term interests here. It's important we get it right. This strategy is beginning to work. I think I'll leave Iraq alone.' And so that a new president coming in doesn't have a first crisis about 'let's pull the troops out of Iraq.' "
Bush has even quietly sent advice through intermediaries to Clinton and other Democratic candidates, urging them to be careful in their campaign rhetoric so they do not limit their options should they win, according to a new book, "The Evangelical President," by Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner. Bush has "been urging candidates, 'Don't get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically,' " White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten told Sammon.
Bush is also rushing to institutionalize some of the controversial tactics he has employed in the battle with terrorists so that they will outlast his presidency. That was a major reason he agreed to put his National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program under the jurisdiction of a secret intelligence court, aides said. And that is why he has pushed to find a way to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and find other ways of handling suspected terrorists, although officials increasingly doubt they will be able to do so.
White House counselor Ed Gillespie said the president's team is not panicked about dwindling time but hopes to push steadily toward some goals that will bear fruit before the end of the administration. "On some of these things we've made a lot of progress," he said. "We may not be in the red zone, but we're at a point where you don't need to throw the long ball. We can get there with three yards and a cloud of dust if we keep moving."
The focus on passing time and the coming judgment of history is common at this point in a two-term presidency, of course. In his final months in office, Bill Clinton also launched an intense effort to solve the Middle East conflict only to have Camp David talks collapse. Joel P. Johnson, who was Clinton's senior adviser in the last part of his presidency, remembers his boss holding "a whip and a chair" trying to force as much change before surrendering the Oval Office.
"It's on your mind every day because you know how long it takes to create a policy and build a campaign around it and enact it or in some way force change before your administration is over," Johnson said. "Literally on your wall and in your mind there is a calendar, and every day you see a red X and you wake up in the morning and you realize 'we only have so much time.' And what focuses your mind is you know on that last day, the story's over and you can't change it anymore."
Bolten has been trying to focus the minds of his colleagues in the Bush White House ever since taking over as chief of staff last year. He gave other top aides clocks set to show how many days and hours remain in this administration and told them to think about big things that could be accomplished in that time. Yet the most ambitious items on Bush's second-term domestic agenda have died, most notably his ideas for restructuring Social Security and immigration laws.
"They're off the table. They're done. Didn't work," said a senior official who insisted on anonymity to speak more candidly about Bush's strategy. "So he's turning to some other things."
One of the other things is climate change. Bush once expressed doubt that human activity has anything to do with warming and renounced the Kyoto treaty imposing mandatory limits on greenhouse emissions. Now he has summoned representatives from the 15 nations that produce the most greenhouse gases to this week's conference in Washington in hopes of producing a plan by the end of 2008.
While the White House points to initiatives and research Bush has sponsored over the years, he has never taken on a high-profile role in confronting the issue until now. Senior European officials said they appreciate the newfound interest. "Some months ago there was no discussion of climate. The words 'Kyoto regime' [did not come] over the lips of a government official here," German Environmental Minister Siegmar Gabriel told reporters yesterday. Alluding to Neil Armstrong's famous walk on the moon, he added, "These are big steps for us and the United States, and small steps for mankind in the international negotiations."
But Bush remains opposed to mandatory emissions caps that environmentalists and many foreign leaders such as Gabriel believe are needed. "I don't think the leopard has changed its spots," said David D. Doniger, a climate analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Or maybe the better analogy is that the only thing the leopard has changed is his spots."
One conference delegate said negotiators realize the talks will not yield a dramatic change in U.S. policy. "With this administration, we will not reach any result because the time is too short," the delegate said. "But they have the problem, not we. . . . They have the problem [of explaining] to their own people what they're going to do."
As he addresses a conference on climate change this morning, President Bush will face not only a crowd of skeptics but the press of time. For nearly seven years, he invested little personal energy in the challenge of global warming. Now, with the end in sight, he has called the biggest nations of the world together to press for a plan by the end of next year.
This has been a week when Bush seems to be checking boxes on the legacy list. He opened the week at the United Nations in New York, where he tried to rally support for his Middle East peace initiative and insisted his vision of a new Palestinian state is still "achievable" before the end of his presidency. And he pressed for more U.N. action against Iran, acutely aware he has less than 16 months left to stop Tehran's nuclear program.
Success in any of these areas would amount to a singular achievement and, in the view of advisers, could help rewrite Bush's place in history. No president wants to be remembered as the author of an ill-fated war and, while Iraq certainly will be at the core of the Bush administration's record, advisers hope to broaden the picture. Yet analysts said the hour is late to resolve the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict on his watch, critics doubt his sincerity on climate change, and Iran remains as intransigent as ever.
"The clock is ticking, and there are certain things you want to accomplish before you go out the door," said Ron Kaufman, who was White House political director for President George H.W. Bush. "While most of these things are not new to his agenda, there may be a bit of a new urgency given the time. . . . No president wants to leave something on the table if they can get it done."
Even on Iraq, Bush clearly has an eye on the clock. While he no longer harbors hope of winning the war by Jan. 20, 2009, he wants to use his remaining time in office to stabilize the country, draw down some forces and leave his successor with a less volatile situation that would dampen domestic demands to pull out completely. If he can do that, he told television anchors during an off-the-record lunch this month, he thinks even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, would continue his policy.
The goal, as national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told the Council on Foreign Relations recently, is that "a new president who comes in in January of '09, whoever he or she may be, will look at it and say, 'I'm persuaded that we have long-term interests here. It's important we get it right. This strategy is beginning to work. I think I'll leave Iraq alone.' And so that a new president coming in doesn't have a first crisis about 'let's pull the troops out of Iraq.' "
Bush has even quietly sent advice through intermediaries to Clinton and other Democratic candidates, urging them to be careful in their campaign rhetoric so they do not limit their options should they win, according to a new book, "The Evangelical President," by Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner. Bush has "been urging candidates, 'Don't get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically,' " White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten told Sammon.
Bush is also rushing to institutionalize some of the controversial tactics he has employed in the battle with terrorists so that they will outlast his presidency. That was a major reason he agreed to put his National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program under the jurisdiction of a secret intelligence court, aides said. And that is why he has pushed to find a way to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and find other ways of handling suspected terrorists, although officials increasingly doubt they will be able to do so.
White House counselor Ed Gillespie said the president's team is not panicked about dwindling time but hopes to push steadily toward some goals that will bear fruit before the end of the administration. "On some of these things we've made a lot of progress," he said. "We may not be in the red zone, but we're at a point where you don't need to throw the long ball. We can get there with three yards and a cloud of dust if we keep moving."
The focus on passing time and the coming judgment of history is common at this point in a two-term presidency, of course. In his final months in office, Bill Clinton also launched an intense effort to solve the Middle East conflict only to have Camp David talks collapse. Joel P. Johnson, who was Clinton's senior adviser in the last part of his presidency, remembers his boss holding "a whip and a chair" trying to force as much change before surrendering the Oval Office.
"It's on your mind every day because you know how long it takes to create a policy and build a campaign around it and enact it or in some way force change before your administration is over," Johnson said. "Literally on your wall and in your mind there is a calendar, and every day you see a red X and you wake up in the morning and you realize 'we only have so much time.' And what focuses your mind is you know on that last day, the story's over and you can't change it anymore."
Bolten has been trying to focus the minds of his colleagues in the Bush White House ever since taking over as chief of staff last year. He gave other top aides clocks set to show how many days and hours remain in this administration and told them to think about big things that could be accomplished in that time. Yet the most ambitious items on Bush's second-term domestic agenda have died, most notably his ideas for restructuring Social Security and immigration laws.
"They're off the table. They're done. Didn't work," said a senior official who insisted on anonymity to speak more candidly about Bush's strategy. "So he's turning to some other things."
One of the other things is climate change. Bush once expressed doubt that human activity has anything to do with warming and renounced the Kyoto treaty imposing mandatory limits on greenhouse emissions. Now he has summoned representatives from the 15 nations that produce the most greenhouse gases to this week's conference in Washington in hopes of producing a plan by the end of 2008.
While the White House points to initiatives and research Bush has sponsored over the years, he has never taken on a high-profile role in confronting the issue until now. Senior European officials said they appreciate the newfound interest. "Some months ago there was no discussion of climate. The words 'Kyoto regime' [did not come] over the lips of a government official here," German Environmental Minister Siegmar Gabriel told reporters yesterday. Alluding to Neil Armstrong's famous walk on the moon, he added, "These are big steps for us and the United States, and small steps for mankind in the international negotiations."
But Bush remains opposed to mandatory emissions caps that environmentalists and many foreign leaders such as Gabriel believe are needed. "I don't think the leopard has changed its spots," said David D. Doniger, a climate analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Or maybe the better analogy is that the only thing the leopard has changed is his spots."
One conference delegate said negotiators realize the talks will not yield a dramatic change in U.S. policy. "With this administration, we will not reach any result because the time is too short," the delegate said. "But they have the problem, not we. . . . They have the problem [of explaining] to their own people what they're going to do."
2011 Dress – 2011 Golden Globe
madhavan_vs
10-12 08:57 PM
Hi,
The I-485 case of mine, my wife and son was approved on Aug 5 2010. My case is EB2 and priority date is Jan 2006. When I enquired USCIS 2 weeks back on not receiving the physical cards for us yet, we got a reply mail for all of us that USCIS is waiting for our biometrics. Why is a biometrics needed after I-485 is approved? Me and my wife gave our biometrics last September only.
We are not sure when we will receive our biometrics notice and how long will it take to get our physical cards after that? Please guide me on this.
Thanks!
The I-485 case of mine, my wife and son was approved on Aug 5 2010. My case is EB2 and priority date is Jan 2006. When I enquired USCIS 2 weeks back on not receiving the physical cards for us yet, we got a reply mail for all of us that USCIS is waiting for our biometrics. Why is a biometrics needed after I-485 is approved? Me and my wife gave our biometrics last September only.
We are not sure when we will receive our biometrics notice and how long will it take to get our physical cards after that? Please guide me on this.
Thanks!
more...
saimrathi
08-17 03:00 PM
THere is already a thread on this http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12512
Blog Feeds
10-18 10:00 AM
I'm glad to see Immigration Voice weighing in on this one. Under some of the versions of health care reform proposals being considered by Congress, legal immigrants could be excluded for five years before they can access the Medicaid and insurance subsidies despite the fact that they pay taxes, are abiding by all of our laws and are often making critical contributions to the success of this country.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/legal-immigrants-could-be-in-limbo-under-health-care-reform-proposals.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/legal-immigrants-could-be-in-limbo-under-health-care-reform-proposals.html)
more...
kirupa
06-25 08:01 PM
Hey Marigold,
I really don't know much about Poser. Post in the good old Flashkit Swift 3D forum: board.flashkit.com/board/...forumid=20 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
I'm sure the good guys there will be able to help you out!
I really don't know much about Poser. Post in the good old Flashkit Swift 3D forum: board.flashkit.com/board/...forumid=20 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
I'm sure the good guys there will be able to help you out!
2010 8 of 17. Christina
FredG
May 14th, 2004, 05:27 PM
feedback is always welcome, with or without a rating.
more...
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.
hair images Jane Krakowski Red Carpet/ golden globes red carpet 2011 dresses.
pani_6
03-23 10:23 AM
When will this bill come up for discussion?..
more...
raviram1980
01-31 06:30 AM
Hi Gurus,
I wanted to know if I can work for H-1B with my current company which holds my H-1B and work outside with another company on EAD. Is there a chance that I may loose my H-1B status if I work with EAD.
Please let me know,
Thanks,
I wanted to know if I can work for H-1B with my current company which holds my H-1B and work outside with another company on EAD. Is there a chance that I may loose my H-1B status if I work with EAD.
Please let me know,
Thanks,
hot Golden Globe dresses 2011
skv
06-22 11:06 AM
Good Morning Folks,
How about this ? Lets say your consulting firm is ready to file your I-485 upon lots of restriction such as two year agreement and to spend around 10 gran.
While the big firm who has filed the PERM and waiting for the approval. In this case, can we do both the cases to see which is better upon the current situation.
This will help few of our folks and your thoughts are always appreciated.
Thanks a lot guys.
How about this ? Lets say your consulting firm is ready to file your I-485 upon lots of restriction such as two year agreement and to spend around 10 gran.
While the big firm who has filed the PERM and waiting for the approval. In this case, can we do both the cases to see which is better upon the current situation.
This will help few of our folks and your thoughts are always appreciated.
Thanks a lot guys.
more...
house star studded red carpet,
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
The final season of ABC's Lost begins tonight wrapping up the groundbreaking science fiction drama that is truly addictive and has one of the most complex plots ever devised for television. The show also has an international cast that American's have rarely seen and which makes the show even more appealing. Here are some of the immigrants that have played important roles in the show over the last six years - Naveen Andrews - UK - Sayid Jarrah Daniel Dae Kim - South Korean - Jin Kwon Yunkim Kim - South Korea - Sun Kwon Evangeline Lilly - Canada -...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrants-of-the-day-the-cast-of-lost.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/immigrants-of-the-day-the-cast-of-lost.html)
tattoo Eva Longoria 2011 Golden
kirupa
07-29 12:29 PM
Hi John - this may help you out: http://www.kirupa.com/blend_wpf/custom_wpf_windows.htm
The rounded corners in that tutorial came from Windows itself :)
Cheers,
Kirupa
The rounded corners in that tutorial came from Windows itself :)
Cheers,
Kirupa
more...
pictures 2011 Golden Globe Awards
sachi12
10-18 08:58 PM
Hi,
My H1B 6 years will be finished in February. My I140/485 were filed in August and I will be laid off on December 31. What options do I have now?
- My employer had filed my immigration papers at my current work location. They are willing to relocate me to different location but are not sure on the impact of change in address. Can I relocate with my current 140/485 filed for current address?
- Can my H1 be extended based on approved labor? I can then move to new location with same employer on renewed H1B and start the entire process again?
Thanks
My H1B 6 years will be finished in February. My I140/485 were filed in August and I will be laid off on December 31. What options do I have now?
- My employer had filed my immigration papers at my current work location. They are willing to relocate me to different location but are not sure on the impact of change in address. Can I relocate with my current 140/485 filed for current address?
- Can my H1 be extended based on approved labor? I can then move to new location with same employer on renewed H1B and start the entire process again?
Thanks
dresses Runway/Red carpet Fashion «
MerciesOfInjustices
03-05 08:58 AM
If there are any physician members in the DC area, we need your help - mainly for a meeting next Friday-Saturday. Even if you are a physician member in another part of the country who can travel to the DC area on March 10-11, 2006, please email us at alok@immigrationvoice.org.
more...
makeup lit up the red carpet in
sanjeev_2004
08-28 11:45 AM
bumped
girlfriend 2011 Golden Globe red carpet
Steve Mitchell
September 12th, 2007, 07:24 AM
Nikon has posted official sample pics from the soon to be released D3. Check them out here (http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3/sample.htm).
hairstyles 1 of 28. Olivia
ramus
07-31 07:31 PM
Please contribute to IV and also participate in DC rally...
Thanks.
Please update your information at http://www..com
This will help you and all.
Thanks.
Please update your information at http://www..com
This will help you and all.
imneedy
10-17 11:35 AM
Does your EAD state that you can use it for returning to US?
hcard
06-05 02:32 PM
What should be filled for question 16 in I765 form.
My lawyer asked me to fill C C 9, but the instruction says C 9. Which is correct.
My lawyer asked me to fill C C 9, but the instruction says C 9. Which is correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment