senglory
06-23 10:15 AM
How can I get know if my H1B was cancelled or not? Of course without asking about it my last employer.
wallpaper +of+1970s+hairstyles
manja
01-24 08:32 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2891
Janisaris
08-24 10:10 AM
I am a July 19th filer and I have not received my receipts. I checked with my lawyer yesterday and they have not received either. Since my lawyer issued all the checks I have no idea whether my checks are cleared or not. So here is my question. How long will it take for the actual reciept after the check clearance.
PD: 17th May 2004
I140: 5the June 2005
I485 : Filed on 19th July
PD: 17th May 2004
I140: 5the June 2005
I485 : Filed on 19th July
2011 1970s hairstyles and
raj2007
02-12 12:13 AM
This issue is discussed before.chk this
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16969
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16969
more...
Macaca
02-17 04:54 PM
Will post something 1.
sobers
02-10 06:40 PM
Guys, an excellent find!
This information should all be collated and presented to QGA.
This information should all be collated and presented to QGA.
more...
Blog Feeds
03-29 07:50 AM
From Metro Weekly: Following up on reports from this weekend, Metro Weekly just received confirmation from Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that cases of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold in light of questions about the continued validity of the Defense of Marriage Act. Bentley writes, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues." He notes, however, "USCIS has not implemented any change...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/03/its-official-uscis-accepting-same-sex-marriage-green-card-petitions.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/03/its-official-uscis-accepting-same-sex-marriage-green-card-petitions.html)
2010 Her hairstyle once spurred so
nmed
10-19 07:36 AM
My six-year H1B expires Feb 2 2010.
My employer (company A) filed PERM with DOL on July 30 2009.
I have spent a total of 2 months outside the U.S while on H1B status.
I have been on bench since July without paystub.
I am leaving the U.S on October 30 2009 and am interested in returning back
through another company
Can I return to the U.S through another employer (company B) on a new H1B visa after Feb 2 2010... How long would that visa be valid for.
If I cannot get a new visa; can I add the total of 5 months spent outside
the US on the current h1b visa for recapture through another employer (company B) after Feb 2 2010 -- return to the U.S; and then
subsequently apply for a 1-year extension after July 31 2010
based on company A's PERM filing.
thanks
nmed
My employer (company A) filed PERM with DOL on July 30 2009.
I have spent a total of 2 months outside the U.S while on H1B status.
I have been on bench since July without paystub.
I am leaving the U.S on October 30 2009 and am interested in returning back
through another company
Can I return to the U.S through another employer (company B) on a new H1B visa after Feb 2 2010... How long would that visa be valid for.
If I cannot get a new visa; can I add the total of 5 months spent outside
the US on the current h1b visa for recapture through another employer (company B) after Feb 2 2010 -- return to the U.S; and then
subsequently apply for a 1-year extension after July 31 2010
based on company A's PERM filing.
thanks
nmed
more...
Kaianna
08-09 01:37 PM
Due to the big mess of July visa bulliten. Can I file multiple 485 cases to secure that one of my AOS case is accepted? Since once it is rejected due to improper filing, the next visa bulliten would be back to 2006 or 2005.
My situation is:
First I-485 case: I can file I-485 as principle applicant, and my spouse can file as dependent
plan to submit at the end of this week (Aug 11, 07).
Sencond I-485 case: My spouse can file as principle applicant based on his I-140, and I can file as dependent, plan to submit before Aug 17, 2007, with cover letter stating:
If the first AOS case based on xxx's I-140 is accepted, please withdraw the second AOS case based on YYY's I-140.
Is it doable? any potential issue? Thank you very much for your comments and advise. Urgent!!!
My situation is:
First I-485 case: I can file I-485 as principle applicant, and my spouse can file as dependent
plan to submit at the end of this week (Aug 11, 07).
Sencond I-485 case: My spouse can file as principle applicant based on his I-140, and I can file as dependent, plan to submit before Aug 17, 2007, with cover letter stating:
If the first AOS case based on xxx's I-140 is accepted, please withdraw the second AOS case based on YYY's I-140.
Is it doable? any potential issue? Thank you very much for your comments and advise. Urgent!!!
hair 1970s
h1dedorebaba
05-24 12:09 PM
Hi,
I guess it is taking too much of time to get the receipt notice for H1 transfers/ext due to backlog. Let us fill out the following details and it will help everyone who is waiting for the receipt notice..
I saw one more thread like this but it was purely for premium cases.
Please fill in the following details:
Date Sent:
Receipt notice date:
Service Center: CSC/VSC/NSC/TSC
Approval date:
Processing type: Premium/Regular
Thanks.
Mine:
H1 Transfer
Date Sent: 05/22/07
Receipt notice date: Waiting
Service Center: CSC
Approval date: Waiting
Processing type: Regular
I guess it is taking too much of time to get the receipt notice for H1 transfers/ext due to backlog. Let us fill out the following details and it will help everyone who is waiting for the receipt notice..
I saw one more thread like this but it was purely for premium cases.
Please fill in the following details:
Date Sent:
Receipt notice date:
Service Center: CSC/VSC/NSC/TSC
Approval date:
Processing type: Premium/Regular
Thanks.
Mine:
H1 Transfer
Date Sent: 05/22/07
Receipt notice date: Waiting
Service Center: CSC
Approval date: Waiting
Processing type: Regular
more...
gcpool
08-16 03:45 PM
I have noticed that they have been given instructions not to give any information now due to the volume of calls HOWEVER if you keep trying you might get one person who is kind enough to answer your questions..
I tried 3 times (called with few days in between) and two time I faced pretty short replies with no help. But third time I got a very nice person who gave me more info. Among the few things I learnt were that they are still doing cases as of Aug 2006 and few random cases are being worked on dates after that. Details about I-140 will not be told unless you are the employer or the attorney. But you can ask about the status of your name check.
All the best
I tried 3 times (called with few days in between) and two time I faced pretty short replies with no help. But third time I got a very nice person who gave me more info. Among the few things I learnt were that they are still doing cases as of Aug 2006 and few random cases are being worked on dates after that. Details about I-140 will not be told unless you are the employer or the attorney. But you can ask about the status of your name check.
All the best
hot The shag hairstyle was very
npond1
07-19 09:38 AM
Thanks Pagal! My job classification has not changed and getting paid same salary for last 1 year.
more...
house Season Hairstyles
Macaca
11-13 08:06 PM
GOP tacks right after Democratic gains (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6829.html) By Martin Kady II | Politico, Nov 12, 2007
Republicans may trail in the polls on virtually every issue, but conservative influence is surging in both chambers of Congress as the GOP tries to find its soul again.
It�s a risky strategy to tack to the right while Democrats have momentum in most polls, but Republicans clearly believe that they need to recapture their base before they recapture the majority.
When Republicans ran Congress, hardened fiscal conservatives often had a lone voice-in-the-wilderness feel about them.
Whether it was Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) filibustering on earmarks or Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) making a late-night speech about runaway government spending, the conservative caucus had a sympathetic ear from GOP leaders yet rarely prevailed on strategy or party message.
But now that they�ve been thrust into the minority, the conservative agitators have a front-row seat with Republican leaders, and the number of lawmakers who describe themselves as conservatives continues to grow while moderates appear to be a dying breed among Republicans on Capitol Hill.
In the House, the conservative Republican Study Committee has led the caucus in promising to sustain vetoes of children�s health care legislation and spending bills.
In the Senate, the conservative Republican Steering Committee, led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), is now being invited to weekly Republican leadership meetings on appropriations, a departure from tradition.
The top members of the Senate steering committee also had an exclusive meeting recently with President Bush, who himself is trying to launch a sort of renaissance of fiscal conservatism by vetoing popular spending bills.
The Republican Study Committee now has 104 members, up 50 percent in the past five years.
And 12 of the 15 Republican freshman lawmakers joined the group this year, a clear sign that the small rookie class of Republicans still believes in a conservative future, even while its party struggles nationally.
In contrast, the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership has seen its membership decline 20 percent, from 59 lawmakers in the last Congress to 47 this year.
And seven of those moderates are retiring, further diminishing the power of the middle.
�We don�t need to be shy about what we believe in,� DeMint said in an interview. �We�re starting to act as Republicans around core principles, whether it�s SCHIP or earmarks.�
Democrats are happy to see the Republicans taking a sharp right turn, believing it makes winning independents in 2008 that much easier.
�Republicans can�t try to make fiscal responsibility their mantle when they are responsible for turning record surpluses into record deficits,� said Sarah Feinberg, spokeswoman for the House Democratic Caucus.
�They can�t whine about earmarks when earmarks exploded under their leadership and Democrats have cut them in half and brought accountability to the earmark process.�
The renewed influence by conservatives in the House and Senate Republican caucuses appears to be disconnected from recent poll results.
According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Nov. 4, Americans favor Democrats in handling the economy, 50 percent to 35 percent, and on taxes, 46 percent to 40 percent, showing that Democrats have gained an edge on fiscal issues usually dominated by Republicans.
Independents are also disgruntled. In a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll last month, 63 percent of independents disapproved of the president�s performance.
Some Republican congressional aides privately admit that the energized push for conservative issues amounts to a �minority strategy� in which the party must reclaim its identity after being thrown out of power on Capitol Hill before making a serious run at regaining the majority.
�The far right is not going to bring the Republican Party back to power,� said Charlie Bass, president of the Main Street Republican Partnership and a former GOP House member from New Hampshire.
�The districts that were lost were moderate districts. The far right is big on bluster but short on results.�
Congressional Republican leaders, meanwhile, have been coordinating their efforts with some of the leading minds of the party, including pollsters Frank Luntz and David Winston, and Pat Toomey, president of the conservative Club for Growth.
Republican aides say they�ve also had strategy meetings with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).
At its core, this is an effort to re-energize a party demoralized after last year�s elections.
�We need to do a better job of communicating our core beliefs,� said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. �We had strayed from the core beliefs that got us the majority.�
Still, the strategy of flexing conservative credentials at the expense of the middle carries great risk.
�The image of the party message being dictated by a small group of doctrinaire senators is not something that people at the top of the ticket are going to want,� said Ross K. Baker, a political science professor and congressional expert at Rutgers University.
�This [strategy] springs up when a party is in the minority and prospects are bleak, so it�s unsurprising they�re having a reawakening.�
Indeed, Republicans are finding it easier to create a unified front on spending, immigration and national security as the minority party because they don�t have to legislate, don�t control the congressional schedule and are outnumbered at virtually every turn.
�There were times in the majority when conservatives disagreed with leadership, but there have been very few of those times this year,� said Hensarling, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
�There�s nothing like getting hit over the head with a two-by-four to get someone�s attention. The American people thought Republicans weren�t acting like Republicans.�
To be sure, conservatives have always had significant influence within the Republican leadership in both chambers.
But when it came time to cut deals on spending or to craft bipartisan legislation, they often felt like they were cut out of the process.
Many Republicans still regret the arm twisting on their side of the aisle that led them to vote in favor of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, creating one of the biggest entitlement programs of all time.
Now Republicans are getting their sea legs as a minority party on Capitol Hill, and their rabble-rousers serve a useful purpose in opposing the Democratic majority, especially on spending bills.
Democrats have little chance to override any of the president�s threatened vetoes of appropriations measures, thanks in large part to Republican unity on the issue.
�These fights on spending are important for us to re-establish our credentials,� said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). �The Democrats have made it easy for us to engage in that fight.�
Democrats have indeed been frustrated in both chambers by Republican procedural maneuvers, but they believe voters will see this as obstructionism.
�It became evident months ago that the only play left in their playbook was to attack Democrats on taxing and spending,� said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
�They needed to shore up what�s left of their base. President Bush and Republicans have engaged in a hypocritical series of attacks on spending issues. The president only recently rediscovered the veto.�
Republicans may trail in the polls on virtually every issue, but conservative influence is surging in both chambers of Congress as the GOP tries to find its soul again.
It�s a risky strategy to tack to the right while Democrats have momentum in most polls, but Republicans clearly believe that they need to recapture their base before they recapture the majority.
When Republicans ran Congress, hardened fiscal conservatives often had a lone voice-in-the-wilderness feel about them.
Whether it was Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) filibustering on earmarks or Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) making a late-night speech about runaway government spending, the conservative caucus had a sympathetic ear from GOP leaders yet rarely prevailed on strategy or party message.
But now that they�ve been thrust into the minority, the conservative agitators have a front-row seat with Republican leaders, and the number of lawmakers who describe themselves as conservatives continues to grow while moderates appear to be a dying breed among Republicans on Capitol Hill.
In the House, the conservative Republican Study Committee has led the caucus in promising to sustain vetoes of children�s health care legislation and spending bills.
In the Senate, the conservative Republican Steering Committee, led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), is now being invited to weekly Republican leadership meetings on appropriations, a departure from tradition.
The top members of the Senate steering committee also had an exclusive meeting recently with President Bush, who himself is trying to launch a sort of renaissance of fiscal conservatism by vetoing popular spending bills.
The Republican Study Committee now has 104 members, up 50 percent in the past five years.
And 12 of the 15 Republican freshman lawmakers joined the group this year, a clear sign that the small rookie class of Republicans still believes in a conservative future, even while its party struggles nationally.
In contrast, the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership has seen its membership decline 20 percent, from 59 lawmakers in the last Congress to 47 this year.
And seven of those moderates are retiring, further diminishing the power of the middle.
�We don�t need to be shy about what we believe in,� DeMint said in an interview. �We�re starting to act as Republicans around core principles, whether it�s SCHIP or earmarks.�
Democrats are happy to see the Republicans taking a sharp right turn, believing it makes winning independents in 2008 that much easier.
�Republicans can�t try to make fiscal responsibility their mantle when they are responsible for turning record surpluses into record deficits,� said Sarah Feinberg, spokeswoman for the House Democratic Caucus.
�They can�t whine about earmarks when earmarks exploded under their leadership and Democrats have cut them in half and brought accountability to the earmark process.�
The renewed influence by conservatives in the House and Senate Republican caucuses appears to be disconnected from recent poll results.
According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Nov. 4, Americans favor Democrats in handling the economy, 50 percent to 35 percent, and on taxes, 46 percent to 40 percent, showing that Democrats have gained an edge on fiscal issues usually dominated by Republicans.
Independents are also disgruntled. In a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll last month, 63 percent of independents disapproved of the president�s performance.
Some Republican congressional aides privately admit that the energized push for conservative issues amounts to a �minority strategy� in which the party must reclaim its identity after being thrown out of power on Capitol Hill before making a serious run at regaining the majority.
�The far right is not going to bring the Republican Party back to power,� said Charlie Bass, president of the Main Street Republican Partnership and a former GOP House member from New Hampshire.
�The districts that were lost were moderate districts. The far right is big on bluster but short on results.�
Congressional Republican leaders, meanwhile, have been coordinating their efforts with some of the leading minds of the party, including pollsters Frank Luntz and David Winston, and Pat Toomey, president of the conservative Club for Growth.
Republican aides say they�ve also had strategy meetings with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).
At its core, this is an effort to re-energize a party demoralized after last year�s elections.
�We need to do a better job of communicating our core beliefs,� said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. �We had strayed from the core beliefs that got us the majority.�
Still, the strategy of flexing conservative credentials at the expense of the middle carries great risk.
�The image of the party message being dictated by a small group of doctrinaire senators is not something that people at the top of the ticket are going to want,� said Ross K. Baker, a political science professor and congressional expert at Rutgers University.
�This [strategy] springs up when a party is in the minority and prospects are bleak, so it�s unsurprising they�re having a reawakening.�
Indeed, Republicans are finding it easier to create a unified front on spending, immigration and national security as the minority party because they don�t have to legislate, don�t control the congressional schedule and are outnumbered at virtually every turn.
�There were times in the majority when conservatives disagreed with leadership, but there have been very few of those times this year,� said Hensarling, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
�There�s nothing like getting hit over the head with a two-by-four to get someone�s attention. The American people thought Republicans weren�t acting like Republicans.�
To be sure, conservatives have always had significant influence within the Republican leadership in both chambers.
But when it came time to cut deals on spending or to craft bipartisan legislation, they often felt like they were cut out of the process.
Many Republicans still regret the arm twisting on their side of the aisle that led them to vote in favor of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, creating one of the biggest entitlement programs of all time.
Now Republicans are getting their sea legs as a minority party on Capitol Hill, and their rabble-rousers serve a useful purpose in opposing the Democratic majority, especially on spending bills.
Democrats have little chance to override any of the president�s threatened vetoes of appropriations measures, thanks in large part to Republican unity on the issue.
�These fights on spending are important for us to re-establish our credentials,� said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). �The Democrats have made it easy for us to engage in that fight.�
Democrats have indeed been frustrated in both chambers by Republican procedural maneuvers, but they believe voters will see this as obstructionism.
�It became evident months ago that the only play left in their playbook was to attack Democrats on taxing and spending,� said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
�They needed to shore up what�s left of their base. President Bush and Republicans have engaged in a hypocritical series of attacks on spending issues. The president only recently rediscovered the veto.�
tattoo 1970#39;s Hairstyles
wandmaker
11-16 12:33 AM
Automatic Revaliation is still available - but for your "H1 expired, H1 extension filing pending, no receipt notice received yet for H1 extension filing, and I-485 pending" - it is a BIG NO
more...
pictures Hairstyle; 1970s hairstyle
tamr83
02-21 01:30 AM
I am right now on L1A visa recently filed for extension and still in processing.
I am planning to get married to my girlfriend here and apply for greencard.
Would appreciate information on how to proceed with that and wheather the L1 extension would affect it in anyway.
Thank You
I am planning to get married to my girlfriend here and apply for greencard.
Would appreciate information on how to proceed with that and wheather the L1 extension would affect it in anyway.
Thank You
dresses picks of 1970s hairstyles
Macaca
06-10 05:53 AM
Why Washington Can�t Get Much Done (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/weekinreview/10broder.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By JOHN M. BRODER (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), June 10, 2007
MEMBERS of Congress � with the possible exceptions of Senator Robert C. Byrd and Representative John D. Dingell � come and go. So do presidents and even Supreme Court justices.
But some big issues come to the nation�s capital and never leave, despite the politicians� best efforts to wrap them up and send them packing. Immigration is one.
Efforts to craft a grand compromise on the perennially nettlesome issue of how to deal with the millions who want to settle in this country collapsed in the Senate in spectacular fashion Thursday night, even though President Bush and the Senate leadership desperately wanted a deal. Almost everyone in Washington believes that America�s immigration laws are an unenforceable mess. But confronted with real legislation built on real compromises, the Senate sank beneath murderous political, geographic and ideological crosscurrents. Despite vows of senators to resuscitate the bill, it may be months � or years � before Congress again comes close to passing a major overhaul of immigration law.
But immigration is only one of several major policy matters on which virtually all Americans agree that something has to be done, even as Washington seems mired in dysfunction. What will happen when Congress turns next to energy legislation? Or global warming? Health care? Social Security?
It sometimes seems that it takes a catastrophe to create consensus. The Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 all shattered partisan divisions and led, at least for a time, to enhanced presidential power and a rush of bipartisan lawmaking (some of which political leaders later came to regret). Today, however, the partisan chasm in Washington is deeper than it has been in 100 years, according to some academic studies, as moderate blocs in both parties have all but vanished.
�Remember,� said Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, �these are really big problems and they�re really tough. Solving them is going to involve some major changes in the way we live, the way we tax ourselves, the way we get our health care and the way we transport ourselves.�
He added: �Many of these questions are caught up in ideological differences that really are quite fundamental. On all of them right now there is no consensus in the country and therefore the political system has to try to create one where none now exists.�
A sign of how hard it is to fashion a compromise on these big questions is the length of time between major legislative actions on them. It took almost a decade from the collapse of the Clinton administration�s health care initiative in 1994 to the passage of the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit. The federal minimum wage went unchanged for 10 years until this spring. The last major overhaul of immigration law passed in 1986. The most recent significant revision to Social Security came in 1983.
Even the relatively new issue of global warming has been batted around since 1988, when Al Gore began talking about its potentially dire effects. Now, despite a foot-high stack of proposed legislation on the subject, virtually nothing has been done.
Mr. Gore said it was extremely difficult to move the political system when it is paralyzed by partisan passion and beset by well-financed and well-organized interests. He refers to the combination of the oil, coal and automobile industries as the �carbon lobby,� which he said is very difficult to defeat.
Washington, he said, has also failed to act on global warming for much the same reason that it has not tackled the possible future insolvency of Social Security or the problem of 45 million Americans who lack health insurance. �There�s just garden-variety denial,� he said. �It�s unpleasant to think about and easy to push it off.�
Washington often serves as a trailing indicator of public sentiment on an issue, following action in state capitals or responding belatedly to a growing public outcry. Congress and the White House did not seriously begin to move on immigration until two years ago, after the Minutemen, a civilian group, started patrolling the borders and Southwestern state governors declared states of emergency to deal with hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants stealing in from Mexico.
Given the failure of the 1986 immigration legislation to stem the illegal flow, the public is wary of any new government effort to control the borders, said Merle Black, a professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta. And many lawmakers fear that if they support the current legislation they will be blamed if it fails to live up to its promises. After all, the Medicare drug benefit, too, was a much-heralded attempt to lower the costs of medicines for the elderly, but it created mountains of burdensome paperwork and huge unanticipated costs for the government.
�The public has seen a whole series of performance failures, whether it was the war in Iraq or the response to Katrina,� Professor Black said. �It makes different groups of individuals very skeptical about politicians offering solutions. On top of that, Bush�s approval ratings are so low that he can�t exert any leadership even within his own party.�
Government stasis was not unintended. The Founding Fathers designed the American system of government to cool public passions and created numerous impediments to rash action. They might not be surprised that two decades passed between significant action on immigration law or government old-age pensions. But they might have had trouble conceiving the complexity of the issues facing modern Washington, like global warming or the need to find a way to provide even basic medical care to one in seven Americans.
�It was a pretty simple world Madison was dealing with when he wrote the Federalist Papers,� said Morris P. Fiorina, professor of political science at Stanford University. �His focus was on land, labor and commerce. He was clearly aware of the need to defend the borders, but he was more concerned that you had to limit the reach of government and insure that transitory majorities can�t have their way.�
The molasses pace of governance in America is frustrating to many in and outside Washington. But the framers recognized that the dangers of succumbing to fleeting enthusiasms are often far greater than the slow process of fashioning a consensus from the competing interests of a sectional country.
�I agree that it is a bad thing for it to take an extraordinarily long time to deal with problems,� said Mickey Edwards, a former Republican representative from Oklahoma and now a vice president of the Aspen Institute and a lecturer in government at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. �But I think it is a worse thing to rush into solutions when you�re dealing with a nation of 300 million people.�
He cited Prohibition and the Medicare drug benefit as examples of laws that carried large and unintended consequences.
�I don�t suggest that given enough time you can make everything perfect,� Mr. Edwards said. �But you do need enough time to make sure all views are heard and you can avoid the unforeseen circumstances that plague so many things.�
�You don�t just want them to act,� he said. �You want them to act responsibly.�
MEMBERS of Congress � with the possible exceptions of Senator Robert C. Byrd and Representative John D. Dingell � come and go. So do presidents and even Supreme Court justices.
But some big issues come to the nation�s capital and never leave, despite the politicians� best efforts to wrap them up and send them packing. Immigration is one.
Efforts to craft a grand compromise on the perennially nettlesome issue of how to deal with the millions who want to settle in this country collapsed in the Senate in spectacular fashion Thursday night, even though President Bush and the Senate leadership desperately wanted a deal. Almost everyone in Washington believes that America�s immigration laws are an unenforceable mess. But confronted with real legislation built on real compromises, the Senate sank beneath murderous political, geographic and ideological crosscurrents. Despite vows of senators to resuscitate the bill, it may be months � or years � before Congress again comes close to passing a major overhaul of immigration law.
But immigration is only one of several major policy matters on which virtually all Americans agree that something has to be done, even as Washington seems mired in dysfunction. What will happen when Congress turns next to energy legislation? Or global warming? Health care? Social Security?
It sometimes seems that it takes a catastrophe to create consensus. The Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 all shattered partisan divisions and led, at least for a time, to enhanced presidential power and a rush of bipartisan lawmaking (some of which political leaders later came to regret). Today, however, the partisan chasm in Washington is deeper than it has been in 100 years, according to some academic studies, as moderate blocs in both parties have all but vanished.
�Remember,� said Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, �these are really big problems and they�re really tough. Solving them is going to involve some major changes in the way we live, the way we tax ourselves, the way we get our health care and the way we transport ourselves.�
He added: �Many of these questions are caught up in ideological differences that really are quite fundamental. On all of them right now there is no consensus in the country and therefore the political system has to try to create one where none now exists.�
A sign of how hard it is to fashion a compromise on these big questions is the length of time between major legislative actions on them. It took almost a decade from the collapse of the Clinton administration�s health care initiative in 1994 to the passage of the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit. The federal minimum wage went unchanged for 10 years until this spring. The last major overhaul of immigration law passed in 1986. The most recent significant revision to Social Security came in 1983.
Even the relatively new issue of global warming has been batted around since 1988, when Al Gore began talking about its potentially dire effects. Now, despite a foot-high stack of proposed legislation on the subject, virtually nothing has been done.
Mr. Gore said it was extremely difficult to move the political system when it is paralyzed by partisan passion and beset by well-financed and well-organized interests. He refers to the combination of the oil, coal and automobile industries as the �carbon lobby,� which he said is very difficult to defeat.
Washington, he said, has also failed to act on global warming for much the same reason that it has not tackled the possible future insolvency of Social Security or the problem of 45 million Americans who lack health insurance. �There�s just garden-variety denial,� he said. �It�s unpleasant to think about and easy to push it off.�
Washington often serves as a trailing indicator of public sentiment on an issue, following action in state capitals or responding belatedly to a growing public outcry. Congress and the White House did not seriously begin to move on immigration until two years ago, after the Minutemen, a civilian group, started patrolling the borders and Southwestern state governors declared states of emergency to deal with hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants stealing in from Mexico.
Given the failure of the 1986 immigration legislation to stem the illegal flow, the public is wary of any new government effort to control the borders, said Merle Black, a professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta. And many lawmakers fear that if they support the current legislation they will be blamed if it fails to live up to its promises. After all, the Medicare drug benefit, too, was a much-heralded attempt to lower the costs of medicines for the elderly, but it created mountains of burdensome paperwork and huge unanticipated costs for the government.
�The public has seen a whole series of performance failures, whether it was the war in Iraq or the response to Katrina,� Professor Black said. �It makes different groups of individuals very skeptical about politicians offering solutions. On top of that, Bush�s approval ratings are so low that he can�t exert any leadership even within his own party.�
Government stasis was not unintended. The Founding Fathers designed the American system of government to cool public passions and created numerous impediments to rash action. They might not be surprised that two decades passed between significant action on immigration law or government old-age pensions. But they might have had trouble conceiving the complexity of the issues facing modern Washington, like global warming or the need to find a way to provide even basic medical care to one in seven Americans.
�It was a pretty simple world Madison was dealing with when he wrote the Federalist Papers,� said Morris P. Fiorina, professor of political science at Stanford University. �His focus was on land, labor and commerce. He was clearly aware of the need to defend the borders, but he was more concerned that you had to limit the reach of government and insure that transitory majorities can�t have their way.�
The molasses pace of governance in America is frustrating to many in and outside Washington. But the framers recognized that the dangers of succumbing to fleeting enthusiasms are often far greater than the slow process of fashioning a consensus from the competing interests of a sectional country.
�I agree that it is a bad thing for it to take an extraordinarily long time to deal with problems,� said Mickey Edwards, a former Republican representative from Oklahoma and now a vice president of the Aspen Institute and a lecturer in government at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. �But I think it is a worse thing to rush into solutions when you�re dealing with a nation of 300 million people.�
He cited Prohibition and the Medicare drug benefit as examples of laws that carried large and unintended consequences.
�I don�t suggest that given enough time you can make everything perfect,� Mr. Edwards said. �But you do need enough time to make sure all views are heard and you can avoid the unforeseen circumstances that plague so many things.�
�You don�t just want them to act,� he said. �You want them to act responsibly.�
more...
makeup The main hairstyle trend was
EKMOD
December 26th, 2004, 10:20 AM
Onecall.com has S3's in stock, if anybody is curious.
girlfriend hairstyles of the 1980s.
semiGator
12-16 10:39 AM
As the article stated there are 47 million latinos and majority of them are citizens.....we don't have that kind of numbers to make an impact on either party.
hairstyles 1970s hairstyles check out
sam12sa
12-18 11:10 AM
Hi
I am transferring my H1 to a firm on full time basis(not consulting company, product based). Currently I am on a project with A and I am going to transfer my H1 to B (which is 6 yrs old, american based company). I have pay slips from past 4 months, and I was on bench for 2 months where I didnt get my pasylips. For transfer I gave my past 4 months pay slips.
I have 2 questions here.
1) With company A, my LCA was not accurate. My LCA was of NY state & I am working in NJ.
Will this create any issue for my H1 transfer with company B which is VA and they have got the approved LCA.
2) Will there be any issue with my 2 months pay slips (which are of July & Aug). Right now I have submitted my H1 transfer with past 4 months payslips (Sep,Oct, Nov & Dec).
Please advice, I will really appreciate your suggestions on this ASAP.
Thanks
I am transferring my H1 to a firm on full time basis(not consulting company, product based). Currently I am on a project with A and I am going to transfer my H1 to B (which is 6 yrs old, american based company). I have pay slips from past 4 months, and I was on bench for 2 months where I didnt get my pasylips. For transfer I gave my past 4 months pay slips.
I have 2 questions here.
1) With company A, my LCA was not accurate. My LCA was of NY state & I am working in NJ.
Will this create any issue for my H1 transfer with company B which is VA and they have got the approved LCA.
2) Will there be any issue with my 2 months pay slips (which are of July & Aug). Right now I have submitted my H1 transfer with past 4 months payslips (Sep,Oct, Nov & Dec).
Please advice, I will really appreciate your suggestions on this ASAP.
Thanks
Blog Feeds
06-16 03:20 PM
The National Foundation for American Policy has issued an important report analyzing the interplay between of trade laws and S.887 and S.2804, bills introduced by Senators Grassley and Sanders, which would impose an array of new restrictions on skilled workers. Language from these bills is also being considered for inclusion in the draft language for the comprehensive immigration reform bill. According to the report, provisions in the two bills that appear to violate US commitments under the General Agreement on Trade and Services include 1. changing H-1B wage rules to require employers to pay median average wages (S.887) 2. changing...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/nfap-pending-h1b-and-l1-senate-bills-likely-violate-trade-laws.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/nfap-pending-h1b-and-l1-senate-bills-likely-violate-trade-laws.html)
indian111
09-20 02:13 PM
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment