gvenkat
02-03 12:28 PM
Hi,
I need to get my H1B stamped in Mexico. I know there are some agencies which offer a complete package trip to the Mexico US Consulate. Does anybody know some names and contact information?
I am based in Los Angeles and am pretty close to Mexico border. Do they have something in Southern California? Other places are also Ok.
Thanks,
Prashant.
on a lighter note... just cross the border nah... :D:D but tto ur questions... I think that victorgarcia is helpful...
I need to get my H1B stamped in Mexico. I know there are some agencies which offer a complete package trip to the Mexico US Consulate. Does anybody know some names and contact information?
I am based in Los Angeles and am pretty close to Mexico border. Do they have something in Southern California? Other places are also Ok.
Thanks,
Prashant.
on a lighter note... just cross the border nah... :D:D but tto ur questions... I think that victorgarcia is helpful...
wallpaper hot sin cara unmasked and rey
Preetihere
06-10 06:00 PM
Hi,
Please advice on my situation.
1)I was on L1 and applied for change of status from L1 to h4.once this was approved(I just saw the approval had not recieved any docs) i had to traval to India becos of my health.
2)while in India i gt 2 know that my H1 gt approved in may end (I797 A with new I-94).
as planned i came back with h4 stamped.
does this effect my h1 which valid from 1 oct 2010 in any way as I am currenly on h4 and plz advice what needs to be done to work from 1 oct
.please help.
Thanks
Please advice on my situation.
1)I was on L1 and applied for change of status from L1 to h4.once this was approved(I just saw the approval had not recieved any docs) i had to traval to India becos of my health.
2)while in India i gt 2 know that my H1 gt approved in may end (I797 A with new I-94).
as planned i came back with h4 stamped.
does this effect my h1 which valid from 1 oct 2010 in any way as I am currenly on h4 and plz advice what needs to be done to work from 1 oct
.please help.
Thanks
silverandre
03-17 11:07 PM
Hello! I went to US to work in a summer/work travel experience under a J1 VISA.
My VISA expired on APR/01/2007 , but I sent a letter to USCIS asking to change my VISA status to B1/B2. The letter just arrived at the USCIS Office on APR/02/2007. I kept working until JUN/15.
In JUN/20/2007 I left US back to my home country and later accessing the USCIS site I figured out that my request was processed and denied.
Now I'm graduated in Business and was hired to work in a big company in NYC, they are requesting me to get another J1 VISA (this time J1 Trainee for a 1,5 year).
I would like to know if this kind of situation generates a BAN, or if I will have any kind of trouble in the interview in the US Embassy.
Thank you so much!
My VISA expired on APR/01/2007 , but I sent a letter to USCIS asking to change my VISA status to B1/B2. The letter just arrived at the USCIS Office on APR/02/2007. I kept working until JUN/15.
In JUN/20/2007 I left US back to my home country and later accessing the USCIS site I figured out that my request was processed and denied.
Now I'm graduated in Business and was hired to work in a big company in NYC, they are requesting me to get another J1 VISA (this time J1 Trainee for a 1,5 year).
I would like to know if this kind of situation generates a BAN, or if I will have any kind of trouble in the interview in the US Embassy.
Thank you so much!
2011 hot wwe sin cara mask. wwe sin
rajpath
07-02 04:20 AM
What a chaos? We were so close, turned out to be mirage. When do you expect your GC? My PD is Feb 2006. I do not expect anything positive in 3 years. I doubt anything changed in our career in 2 years. Where do we stand?
more...
Macaca
10-28 09:52 AM
It's time we seriously ponder fixing the Constitution (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/28/INCHSUV9I.DTL&hw=immigration&sn=008&sc=247) By Larry J. Sabato | San Francisco Chronicle, October 28, 2007
Professor Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" (Walker & Company, 2007). He is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
What is the undisturbed and unaddressed source of many of the nation's current difficulties? It's the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution has become a secularly sacred document, as though God handed it to Moses in a third tablet on the Mount. The 2008 presidential candidates have been offering us prescriptions for everything from Iraq to health care over the past several months. But here is the problem: Their fixes are situational and incremental. In the meantime, underlying structural problems with America's governmental and political system are preventing us from solving our most intractable challenges.
If progress as a society is to be made, it is time for elemental change. The last place we look to understand why the U.S. system isn't working well anymore - the Constitution - should be the first place. A careful look at constitutional reform should begin now and culminate in a new Constitutional Convention.
Does this sound radical? If so, then the framers were radicals, too. They would be both disappointed and amazed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments they could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787. Urging his future countrymen to take advantage of their own experiences with government, George Washington declared, "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
Thomas Jefferson insisted that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years," the length of a generation in Jefferson's time.
The overall design of the Constitution remains brilliant and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation to a 21st century world unimaginable to the framers.
Let's explore a few: More than 14 million U.S. citizens are automatically and irrevocably barred from holding the office of president simply because they were not born in the United States - either they are immigrants or their U.S. mothers gave birth to them while outside U.S. territory. This exclusion creates a noxious form of second-class citizenship. The requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen" should be replaced with a condition that a candidate must be a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years before election to the presidency.
Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue U.S. military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops.
If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population. This small-state stranglehold is not merely a bump in the road; it is a massive roadblock to fairness that can, and often does, stop all progressive traffic. We should give each of the 10 most populated states two additional Senate seats and give each of the next 15 most populated states one additional seat. Sparsely populated states will still be disproportionately represented, but the ridiculous tilt to them in today's system can be a thing of the past.
If someone purposefully tried to conjure up the most random and illogical method of nominating presidential candidates, the resulting system would probably look much as ours does today. The incoherent lineup of primaries and caucuses forces candidates to campaign at least a year before the first nomination contest so they can become known nationwide and raise the money needed to compete. Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states; the regions would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. A U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on Jan. 1 of the presidential election year, would determine the order of regional events. The new system would add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year while also shortening the campaign: No one would know in which region the contest would begin until New Year's Day.
Excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court - so much so that had the framers realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day. A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This all is just a mere scratch on the surface in identifying long-overdue constitutional reforms. There are dozens of other worthy proposals than can and ought to be discussed, if we but have the will to imagine a better Constitution. No rational person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of thorough-going work. But let's at least start the discussion, and begin thinking about the generation-long process that could lead to a new constitutional convention sometime this century.
Professor Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" (Walker & Company, 2007). He is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
What is the undisturbed and unaddressed source of many of the nation's current difficulties? It's the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution has become a secularly sacred document, as though God handed it to Moses in a third tablet on the Mount. The 2008 presidential candidates have been offering us prescriptions for everything from Iraq to health care over the past several months. But here is the problem: Their fixes are situational and incremental. In the meantime, underlying structural problems with America's governmental and political system are preventing us from solving our most intractable challenges.
If progress as a society is to be made, it is time for elemental change. The last place we look to understand why the U.S. system isn't working well anymore - the Constitution - should be the first place. A careful look at constitutional reform should begin now and culminate in a new Constitutional Convention.
Does this sound radical? If so, then the framers were radicals, too. They would be both disappointed and amazed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments they could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787. Urging his future countrymen to take advantage of their own experiences with government, George Washington declared, "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
Thomas Jefferson insisted that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years," the length of a generation in Jefferson's time.
The overall design of the Constitution remains brilliant and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation to a 21st century world unimaginable to the framers.
Let's explore a few: More than 14 million U.S. citizens are automatically and irrevocably barred from holding the office of president simply because they were not born in the United States - either they are immigrants or their U.S. mothers gave birth to them while outside U.S. territory. This exclusion creates a noxious form of second-class citizenship. The requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen" should be replaced with a condition that a candidate must be a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years before election to the presidency.
Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue U.S. military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops.
If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with a total of just under 17 percent of the country's population. This small-state stranglehold is not merely a bump in the road; it is a massive roadblock to fairness that can, and often does, stop all progressive traffic. We should give each of the 10 most populated states two additional Senate seats and give each of the next 15 most populated states one additional seat. Sparsely populated states will still be disproportionately represented, but the ridiculous tilt to them in today's system can be a thing of the past.
If someone purposefully tried to conjure up the most random and illogical method of nominating presidential candidates, the resulting system would probably look much as ours does today. The incoherent lineup of primaries and caucuses forces candidates to campaign at least a year before the first nomination contest so they can become known nationwide and raise the money needed to compete. Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states; the regions would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. A U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on Jan. 1 of the presidential election year, would determine the order of regional events. The new system would add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year while also shortening the campaign: No one would know in which region the contest would begin until New Year's Day.
Excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court - so much so that had the framers realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day. A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This all is just a mere scratch on the surface in identifying long-overdue constitutional reforms. There are dozens of other worthy proposals than can and ought to be discussed, if we but have the will to imagine a better Constitution. No rational person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of thorough-going work. But let's at least start the discussion, and begin thinking about the generation-long process that could lead to a new constitutional convention sometime this century.
Blog Feeds
06-01 12:50 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJFUkvYRzUOYGZEkrWptBp_11yrJwvfrnCbon5CGIASfH_vh7AEMqEmjG2JNDgDmG1b8QyhCzowsmM4X8Z3-LmBvDO6TA74MQW5cLfLHN7raIicLZkL7I-I6cZQRdtyUYXzVXA3wBej_24/s200/soccer+cartoon.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJFUkvYRzUOYGZEkrWptBp_11yrJwvfrnCbon5CGIASfH_vh7AEMqEmjG2JNDgDmG1b8QyhCzowsmM4X8Z3-LmBvDO6TA74MQW5cLfLHN7raIicLZkL7I-I6cZQRdtyUYXzVXA3wBej_24/s1600/soccer+cartoon.jpg)
The U.S. Department of State has published an alert (here (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_3250.html)) for U.S. citizens traveling to or residing in South Africa to safety and security issues related to the FIFA World Cup taking place in nine cities across the country from June 11 to July 11, 2010.
The U.S. Mission to South Africa also has a dedicated World Cup website here. (http://www.sa2010.state.gov/)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-8125950522395613446?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/05/department-of-state-issues-travel-alert.html)
The U.S. Department of State has published an alert (here (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_3250.html)) for U.S. citizens traveling to or residing in South Africa to safety and security issues related to the FIFA World Cup taking place in nine cities across the country from June 11 to July 11, 2010.
The U.S. Mission to South Africa also has a dedicated World Cup website here. (http://www.sa2010.state.gov/)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-8125950522395613446?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/05/department-of-state-issues-travel-alert.html)
more...
mytv
09-08 10:14 AM
I had filed my i-485 along wid my whole famliy on 2nd july . My checks got cashed yesterday for all of us. But when i seee online its shows case pending for all of us expect my younger son ..w ehave reciept but we cant locate his reciept number online.Its showing number doesnot exist . So wat can be the reason behind it. I have reciept numbers for his i-485 and i765 juss can see his status online..
Plz help.
will be thankful to all of u
Plz help.
will be thankful to all of u
2010 2011 wwe sin cara unmasked.
pmamp
03-02 03:23 PM
Can I apply for EAD for spouse on the basis of I-140 approval? I can not file I-485 due to retrogression and he is running out of her H1B visa limit.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
wc_user
11-15 10:53 PM
My Title is different in H1-B and GC, though it is in the same field.. I am going for stamping to Chennai in January.. Will this be a problem ? Will they ask questions about I-485 filing in H1-B stamping ?
hair wwe sin cara wallpaper.
junnarkarsamira
10-30 05:22 PM
Gurus please help since my case is somewhat unique
I have future GC filed from Company X, the priority date is February 2006.
I am currently working for Company Y on H1B. This H1B will expire in April 2009. Company Y is also ready to file my GC and I would like to work with Company Y till by future GC is approved, my question is
If I have already filed for 485, EAD and AP through Company X, scenario will it be advisable to file another labour and I-140 through Company Y now?
What could be the implications?
I have future GC filed from Company X, the priority date is February 2006.
I am currently working for Company Y on H1B. This H1B will expire in April 2009. Company Y is also ready to file my GC and I would like to work with Company Y till by future GC is approved, my question is
If I have already filed for 485, EAD and AP through Company X, scenario will it be advisable to file another labour and I-140 through Company Y now?
What could be the implications?
more...
ivgclive
09-21 12:21 PM
D
hot John Cena and Sin Cara
mundakamal
06-13 07:47 PM
Hi All,
My employer after too much of talks is ready to file. But in all the applications he wants to put his address so that he receives the EAD card and AP..He is not ready to put my address. Can he keep my EAD card ?
Gurus please advise...
Thanks!
My employer after too much of talks is ready to file. But in all the applications he wants to put his address so that he receives the EAD card and AP..He is not ready to put my address. Can he keep my EAD card ?
Gurus please advise...
Thanks!
more...
house images wwe sin cara unmasked. sin wwe sin cara unmasked pics. wwe sin cara
forgerator
06-24 05:24 PM
1) Wrap up the backlog and introduce enough visas to make all categories EB2/EB3 current for everyone.
2) Eliminate this nonsense of H1 visa stamp. A person should be able to apply for visa while remaining in the US.
2) Eliminate this nonsense of H1 visa stamp. A person should be able to apply for visa while remaining in the US.
tattoo 2010 wwe sin cara wiki. sin
kumar11
02-23 08:57 PM
Hi ,
I was in confusing situation,hope you can clarify and help me out.
My wife came to US as H4 in Feb 08.Her i-94 is valid till march 2010.
She applied H1 got H1 approved from Oct08 for 3 years.Since from Oct08 , employer couldnot find project for her.Her employer is asking to move from H1 to H4 back using Cos(i-539).After getting project can move back from H4 to H1 which doesnot come under quota.
My questions are:
1.Is it safe to move from H1 to H4 and back to H1 when she gets project.
2.Her previous H4 i-94 is valid till March 2010.She didnot went to india again.
If she converts from H1 to H4 now,till when she will get i-94(till my H1 valid or original i-94 date).
If she gets i-94 till original i-94 i.e March 2010,does she needs to go to stamping after March 2010 again or continue to be in US even after March or just go for border and get new i-94.
Can you please clarify.
Any suggesstions is really apprecaited.
Thanks
Kumar
I was in confusing situation,hope you can clarify and help me out.
My wife came to US as H4 in Feb 08.Her i-94 is valid till march 2010.
She applied H1 got H1 approved from Oct08 for 3 years.Since from Oct08 , employer couldnot find project for her.Her employer is asking to move from H1 to H4 back using Cos(i-539).After getting project can move back from H4 to H1 which doesnot come under quota.
My questions are:
1.Is it safe to move from H1 to H4 and back to H1 when she gets project.
2.Her previous H4 i-94 is valid till March 2010.She didnot went to india again.
If she converts from H1 to H4 now,till when she will get i-94(till my H1 valid or original i-94 date).
If she gets i-94 till original i-94 i.e March 2010,does she needs to go to stamping after March 2010 again or continue to be in US even after March or just go for border and get new i-94.
Can you please clarify.
Any suggesstions is really apprecaited.
Thanks
Kumar
more...
pictures sin cara facebook. how to draw
Macaca
11-28 07:49 AM
As Lott Leaves the Senate, Compromise Appears to Be a Lost Art (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702358.html) By Jonathan Weisman | Washington Post, November 28, 2007; A04
In January, as a dormant Senate chamber entered its fourth hour of inaction and a major ethics bill lay tangled in knots, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took to the Senate floor with a plaintive plea.
"Here we are, the sun has set on Thursday. It is a quarter to 6. The sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats," the veteran lawmaker lamented to a near-empty chamber. "Hello, it is a quarter to 6. . . . I have called everybody involved. I have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is there an agenda here?"
The next 10 months appear to have given him the answer. A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.
And on Monday, Lott, one of the Senate's consummate dealmakers, called it quits.
"Is he the most frustrated he's ever been? Probably not," said David Hoppe, Lott's longtime chief of staff, now with the lobbying firm Quinn, Gillespie & Associates. "But frustration is cumulative."
Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate. With the Senate populated by a record number of former House members, the rules of the Old Boys' Club are giving way to the partisan trench warfare and party-line votes that prevail in the House. States once represented by common-ground dealmakers, including John Breaux (D-La.), David L. Boren (D-Okla.), James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), are now electing ideological stalwarts, such as David Vitter (R-La.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
"The Senate is predicated on the ability of people being able to work together," said former senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who was majority whip for much of Lott's years as majority leader. "I'm not throwing rocks at anybody, but there's just been a lot less of that."
Former majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed: "Senator Lott's resignation means the loss of one of the few Republicans in leadership who often excelled in finding compromise and common ground."
Lott has never been a policy moderate, inclined to reach agreement with Democrats on ideological grounds. But he has almost always been a pragmatist, relishing the art of the deal. Just last month, as he labored to crack a wall of Democratic opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick, Lott wondered aloud to an aide why he was working so hard for a man he did not really know and for someone who was much more closely allied with Mississippi's other Republican senator, Thad Cochran.
"I said to him, 'You know, it's not that you like Southwick. You just like the process. You want the deal,' and he just smiled," recalled the Lott aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging private deliberations. "It was a game. It was, 'Let me figure out how to get this done.' "
Such dealmakers still wander the Senate's halls: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). And others could arise as a generation schooled in pragmatism -- such as John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) -- heads for the exits next year.
"Just because an individual leaves doesn't mean you're not going to find new centers to structure work in the United States Senate," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to former majority leader (R-Tenn.). Lott would "be the first to say that no individual is indispensable."
But with the Senate almost dysfunctional, those new power centers are difficult to find.
"The Senate is still a great deliberative body," Nickles said. "But it's a little less congenial and a little too partisan."
Lott made a career out of the art of the deal. In the summer of 1996, after then-Sen. Robert J. Dole resigned to pursue the White House full time, Lott took the reins of a Senate that had ground to a halt as Democrats moved to thwart GOP accomplishments ahead of the presidential election. Lott implored his colleagues to act.
In short order, Congress approved a major overhaul of the nation's welfare laws, cleared a bevy of other bills and cut a deal with the Clinton White House on annual spending bills. After the election, Hoppe recalled, Clinton called Lott to joke that had he not gotten the Senate back on track, the Democrats might well have recaptured a chamber of Congress.
The next year, White House Chief of Staff Erskine B. Bowles and Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin -- both wealthy Wall Street financiers -- sat huddled in Lott's office, as Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tried to cut a final deal on a balanced budget agreement that included a cut to the capital gains tax rate.
"There they were, two Democrats who had been very successful in business, squaring off with two Republicans who didn't have two nickels to rub together," Hoppe recalled.
They struck a deal: Cut the capital gains rate and create a major federal program to offer health insurance to children of the working poor.
After the 2000 election, which left the Senate deadlocked at 50 seats apiece, Lott again struck a deal that angered many in his party. Although Republicans technically had control of the Senate with the vote of newly elected Vice President Cheney, Lott and Daschle agreed to evenly divide the committees. Moreover, they agreed, if one party won a majority midstream, either through a party switch, a resignation or a death, the other party would agree to relinquish control without a fight.
Lott reasoned that the deadlocked Senate could waste the first months of George W. Bush's fledgling presidency in a process fight, or he could relent early and get to work.
But such deals are getting harder to come by.
On June 7, as Lott absorbed increasingly virulent attacks from conservatives for his support of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, he took to the Senate floor for another appeal.
"This is the time where we are going to see whether we are a Senate anymore," he intoned. "Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote."
Three weeks later, the immigration bill fell to a Republican filibuster, and Congress slithered away from the issue.
In January, as a dormant Senate chamber entered its fourth hour of inaction and a major ethics bill lay tangled in knots, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) took to the Senate floor with a plaintive plea.
"Here we are, the sun has set on Thursday. It is a quarter to 6. The sun officially went down at 5:13. We are like bats," the veteran lawmaker lamented to a near-empty chamber. "Hello, it is a quarter to 6. . . . I have called everybody involved. I have been to offices. I have been stirring around, scurrying around. Is there an agenda here?"
The next 10 months appear to have given him the answer. A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.
And on Monday, Lott, one of the Senate's consummate dealmakers, called it quits.
"Is he the most frustrated he's ever been? Probably not," said David Hoppe, Lott's longtime chief of staff, now with the lobbying firm Quinn, Gillespie & Associates. "But frustration is cumulative."
Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate. With the Senate populated by a record number of former House members, the rules of the Old Boys' Club are giving way to the partisan trench warfare and party-line votes that prevail in the House. States once represented by common-ground dealmakers, including John Breaux (D-La.), David L. Boren (D-Okla.), James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), are now electing ideological stalwarts, such as David Vitter (R-La.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
"The Senate is predicated on the ability of people being able to work together," said former senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who was majority whip for much of Lott's years as majority leader. "I'm not throwing rocks at anybody, but there's just been a lot less of that."
Former majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed: "Senator Lott's resignation means the loss of one of the few Republicans in leadership who often excelled in finding compromise and common ground."
Lott has never been a policy moderate, inclined to reach agreement with Democrats on ideological grounds. But he has almost always been a pragmatist, relishing the art of the deal. Just last month, as he labored to crack a wall of Democratic opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick, Lott wondered aloud to an aide why he was working so hard for a man he did not really know and for someone who was much more closely allied with Mississippi's other Republican senator, Thad Cochran.
"I said to him, 'You know, it's not that you like Southwick. You just like the process. You want the deal,' and he just smiled," recalled the Lott aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging private deliberations. "It was a game. It was, 'Let me figure out how to get this done.' "
Such dealmakers still wander the Senate's halls: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). And others could arise as a generation schooled in pragmatism -- such as John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) -- heads for the exits next year.
"Just because an individual leaves doesn't mean you're not going to find new centers to structure work in the United States Senate," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to former majority leader (R-Tenn.). Lott would "be the first to say that no individual is indispensable."
But with the Senate almost dysfunctional, those new power centers are difficult to find.
"The Senate is still a great deliberative body," Nickles said. "But it's a little less congenial and a little too partisan."
Lott made a career out of the art of the deal. In the summer of 1996, after then-Sen. Robert J. Dole resigned to pursue the White House full time, Lott took the reins of a Senate that had ground to a halt as Democrats moved to thwart GOP accomplishments ahead of the presidential election. Lott implored his colleagues to act.
In short order, Congress approved a major overhaul of the nation's welfare laws, cleared a bevy of other bills and cut a deal with the Clinton White House on annual spending bills. After the election, Hoppe recalled, Clinton called Lott to joke that had he not gotten the Senate back on track, the Democrats might well have recaptured a chamber of Congress.
The next year, White House Chief of Staff Erskine B. Bowles and Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin -- both wealthy Wall Street financiers -- sat huddled in Lott's office, as Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tried to cut a final deal on a balanced budget agreement that included a cut to the capital gains tax rate.
"There they were, two Democrats who had been very successful in business, squaring off with two Republicans who didn't have two nickels to rub together," Hoppe recalled.
They struck a deal: Cut the capital gains rate and create a major federal program to offer health insurance to children of the working poor.
After the 2000 election, which left the Senate deadlocked at 50 seats apiece, Lott again struck a deal that angered many in his party. Although Republicans technically had control of the Senate with the vote of newly elected Vice President Cheney, Lott and Daschle agreed to evenly divide the committees. Moreover, they agreed, if one party won a majority midstream, either through a party switch, a resignation or a death, the other party would agree to relinquish control without a fight.
Lott reasoned that the deadlocked Senate could waste the first months of George W. Bush's fledgling presidency in a process fight, or he could relent early and get to work.
But such deals are getting harder to come by.
On June 7, as Lott absorbed increasingly virulent attacks from conservatives for his support of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, he took to the Senate floor for another appeal.
"This is the time where we are going to see whether we are a Senate anymore," he intoned. "Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote."
Three weeks later, the immigration bill fell to a Republican filibuster, and Congress slithered away from the issue.
dresses sin cara wwe wallpaper. sin
ivoiceuser
02-11 05:47 PM
Hello,
Here is my situation :
1) Labor filed in EB3 in June 2004. The labor was filed in non-PERM and approved. I-140 was filed in Aug 2007 and it is approved in Dec 2008 with Priority date of June 2004
2) Labor filed in EB3 with same company in May 2006 through PERM. Got approved in 2 months and I-140 applied and approved within 12 months in April 2007. Priority date is May 2006. Applied for 485 in Aug 2007 and have EAD/AP based on it.
I am no longer with the company (quit after 180 days after 485 was applied) and am working for another company on H1B using AC21.
Question is, can I port priority date for 485 processing from May 2006 to June 2004 in my case where I have changed employer. Note that by time June 2004 I-140 is approved, I am no longer with that company.
Regards,
ivoiceuser
Here is my situation :
1) Labor filed in EB3 in June 2004. The labor was filed in non-PERM and approved. I-140 was filed in Aug 2007 and it is approved in Dec 2008 with Priority date of June 2004
2) Labor filed in EB3 with same company in May 2006 through PERM. Got approved in 2 months and I-140 applied and approved within 12 months in April 2007. Priority date is May 2006. Applied for 485 in Aug 2007 and have EAD/AP based on it.
I am no longer with the company (quit after 180 days after 485 was applied) and am working for another company on H1B using AC21.
Question is, can I port priority date for 485 processing from May 2006 to June 2004 in my case where I have changed employer. Note that by time June 2004 I-140 is approved, I am no longer with that company.
Regards,
ivoiceuser
more...
makeup sin cara. wwe sin cara mask.
cj4ualways
09-14 05:12 PM
Thanks a bunch
girlfriend wwe sin cara unmasked. wwe sin
gc_kaavaali
09-20 03:19 PM
It should be okay. I sent to my attorney as well as my HR. I do not see any issues as long as it is just GC copy.
My attorney asked me to send a copy of my GC to make sure the info is correctly printed. Is it ok send it to them?
My attorney asked me to send a copy of my GC to make sure the info is correctly printed. Is it ok send it to them?
hairstyles sin cara wwe mask. sin cara
LOL123
11-24 03:58 PM
Bump>>>>>>>>>
kittu1991
06-19 08:42 PM
I have a question. I heard about new premium processing rule for 140.
my friend�s six years is going to complete in next month , he has applied labour certification via PARM 10 months back and its pending, did he is eligible to file 140? Or he has to live next month?
Your friend cannot apply for I140 without approved labour. I don't know what other provision he has to be in status. May be he can try to recpture the vaccation time. If he has atleast 2 months of vaccation time, don't know if he can apply for 7th yr extension based on 365 days rule.
my friend�s six years is going to complete in next month , he has applied labour certification via PARM 10 months back and its pending, did he is eligible to file 140? Or he has to live next month?
Your friend cannot apply for I140 without approved labour. I don't know what other provision he has to be in status. May be he can try to recpture the vaccation time. If he has atleast 2 months of vaccation time, don't know if he can apply for 7th yr extension based on 365 days rule.
Blog Feeds
08-19 05:30 PM
The H1B visa (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) program is unlikely to reach its cap of 65,000 before the start of the 2010 fiscal with nearly 20,000 vacancies amid the economic downturn. This has happened for the first time in several years that the demand for the visas, which is mostly availed by Indian professionals, has slowed down.
Also due to a large number of rejections of H-1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) petitions, this figure of 20,000 vacancies has remained almost the same for the past two months. Past figures indicate that Indian IT professionals have been a major beneficiary of H1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) visas. An additional 20,000 H1B can also be issued to those foreign professionals, who have masters or higher degree from the U.S. Though the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received 20,000 petitions, it continues to accept applications in this category.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visas_a_review_of_fy_20091.html)
Also due to a large number of rejections of H-1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) petitions, this figure of 20,000 vacancies has remained almost the same for the past two months. Past figures indicate that Indian IT professionals have been a major beneficiary of H1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) visas. An additional 20,000 H1B can also be issued to those foreign professionals, who have masters or higher degree from the U.S. Though the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received 20,000 petitions, it continues to accept applications in this category.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visas_a_review_of_fy_20091.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment