downloadzombie
06-14 10:36 PM
Hi All,
Seeems there is bigger gameplan around here..
a compromise has been reached between Democrats and Republics for CIR.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/14/congress.immigration.bill/index.html
Lets hope all those eligible for I485 get green card asap.
for rest (including me)we can hope that some amendments can bring relief.
IV I have to say only one thing "When going gets tough,tough get going"
All the best
Seeems there is bigger gameplan around here..
a compromise has been reached between Democrats and Republics for CIR.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/14/congress.immigration.bill/index.html
Lets hope all those eligible for I485 get green card asap.
for rest (including me)we can hope that some amendments can bring relief.
IV I have to say only one thing "When going gets tough,tough get going"
All the best
wallpaper nokia c6 01 price in india
Blog Feeds
03-29 07:50 AM
Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Mark Udall (D-CO) have reintroduced the start up visa bill now that the new Congress is in session. The bill would grant two-year visas to entrepreneurs if they secure $100,000 from qualified investors. After two years, the start up must have at least five employees and $500,000 invested. Democrats and Republicans have talked endlessly that the focus in Washington should be on job creation, but for the most part little has been done. The start up visa is a way to directly create jobs and costs the taxpayers nothing.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/03/senators-introduce-modified-start-up-visa.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/03/senators-introduce-modified-start-up-visa.html)
Macaca
11-14 09:30 PM
Congress Needs Both Comity and Accomplishments (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27104,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call, November 14, 2007
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
2011 Nokia+c6+01+white
LOL123
11-24 09:48 AM
We filed our 485 on July 2nd 2007 at Nebraska office � EB3 � July 7, 2001
- The case was shifted to Texas and we received notices from Texas office with receipt date of August 27.
- Our date is now current however processing at Texas is still stuck at June 27, 2007.
- Does this mean our RD is now 08/27/07 even though it was recd. at Nebraska on 07/02/07??
- The case was shifted to Texas and we received notices from Texas office with receipt date of August 27.
- Our date is now current however processing at Texas is still stuck at June 27, 2007.
- Does this mean our RD is now 08/27/07 even though it was recd. at Nebraska on 07/02/07??
more...
bommanavasu
07-25 05:58 PM
Hi
I have moved recently to San Jose. Can anyone help me where to find doctor for my medical check up for my GC.
I have moved recently to San Jose. Can anyone help me where to find doctor for my medical check up for my GC.
snhn
07-18 03:46 PM
so someone with a DWI on their record, will potentially cause problems when they apply for 485. Has anyone heard of anybody getting their green card with a DWI, after 9/11. what kind of issues one had to go through.
THanks
THanks
more...
martinvisalaw
07-17 11:45 AM
You should move this to the Immigrant Visa forum for more responses.
You should notify CIS that you have changed address and ask that the interview be rescheduled. Hopefully you filed the AR-11, change of address forms, with CIS when you moved
You should notify CIS that you have changed address and ask that the interview be rescheduled. Hopefully you filed the AR-11, change of address forms, with CIS when you moved
2010 new NOKIA C6-01 Black edition
solaris27
12-04 06:06 PM
if your oldh1b expired then yer otherwise not .
more...
Macaca
09-21 09:17 AM
Reid warns of December adjournment (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-warns-of-december-adjournment-2007-09-21.html) By Jackie Kucinich | The Hill, September 21, 2007
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Thursday that lawmakers may need to stay until Christmas to finish their must-pass bills.
His comments underscored that one of Congress�s most stubborn bipartisan traditions � the unattainable adjournment date � may again stand the test of time.
According to the current House calendar, the first session will end Oct. 26, giving lawmakers plenty of time to go back to their districts to talk about the session�s successes or failures, depending on their party.
In reality, Congress rarely adjourns before November, oftentimes staying through December to complete the �people�s work� � appropriations bills � before members head home for the year.
Reid said he hoped that the Senate would not stay until Christmas because of the lingering appropriations battle, but he didn�t rule it out. In July, Reid set the target date at Nov. 16, but was less than confident that the goal would be met even at that point.
Reid added he has spent a lot of time negotiating the appropriations process with House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) as well as the new chief of the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Nussle.
Reid called the difference between the White House budget request and the pending appropriations bills � $21 billion � �a very small amount.� The White House has threatened to veto any spending bill that exceeds its request.
�It�s not as if we are trying to spend this money� on brand-new programs, he said, noting that the funding would go toward law enforcement programs, healthcare and education.
�I don�t want a headache, I want to try to work this out,� Reid said.
He added, however, that the going might be tough, blaming Bush�s �unusual� way of negotiating. �It�s his way or no way.�
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was slightly more optimistic, explaining that House lawmakers have opted to work the week of Columbus Day rather than taking it off like their Senate colleagues.
�We have work to do, and we�re going to [do] it,� Hoyer said. �We are hopeful to certainly get out � we scheduled October 26th as the date to adjourn.�
He added: �I would be unrealistic if I told you that I thought October 26th was a hard date at best.�
House Republicans blamed the inability to meet the deadline on what they described as a light work schedule of early votes and adjournment.
�I think Democrats are coming to the realization that fewer post offices need naming than they had previously thought. It was a fundamental miscalculation on their part,� quipped Amos Snead, a spokesman for Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
A House GOP aide added: �This majority couldn�t hit the broad side of a barn with a beach ball from point-blank, no less a target adjournment date when not a single spending bill has arrived on the president�s desk to date.
�Having said that, we�re heading for the biggest omnibus in history, and we�ll see it around the time kids start looking for Santa,� the aide added.
In July 2006, then-Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) proposed abolishing adjournment dates, citing the fact that they are never met on time and are arbitrary at best.
�It means nothing,� Boehner told reporters at the time. �You all know it means nothing because it really does mean nothing. Anyway, there is no reason to have a target adjournment on the schedule.�
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Thursday that lawmakers may need to stay until Christmas to finish their must-pass bills.
His comments underscored that one of Congress�s most stubborn bipartisan traditions � the unattainable adjournment date � may again stand the test of time.
According to the current House calendar, the first session will end Oct. 26, giving lawmakers plenty of time to go back to their districts to talk about the session�s successes or failures, depending on their party.
In reality, Congress rarely adjourns before November, oftentimes staying through December to complete the �people�s work� � appropriations bills � before members head home for the year.
Reid said he hoped that the Senate would not stay until Christmas because of the lingering appropriations battle, but he didn�t rule it out. In July, Reid set the target date at Nov. 16, but was less than confident that the goal would be met even at that point.
Reid added he has spent a lot of time negotiating the appropriations process with House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) as well as the new chief of the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Nussle.
Reid called the difference between the White House budget request and the pending appropriations bills � $21 billion � �a very small amount.� The White House has threatened to veto any spending bill that exceeds its request.
�It�s not as if we are trying to spend this money� on brand-new programs, he said, noting that the funding would go toward law enforcement programs, healthcare and education.
�I don�t want a headache, I want to try to work this out,� Reid said.
He added, however, that the going might be tough, blaming Bush�s �unusual� way of negotiating. �It�s his way or no way.�
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was slightly more optimistic, explaining that House lawmakers have opted to work the week of Columbus Day rather than taking it off like their Senate colleagues.
�We have work to do, and we�re going to [do] it,� Hoyer said. �We are hopeful to certainly get out � we scheduled October 26th as the date to adjourn.�
He added: �I would be unrealistic if I told you that I thought October 26th was a hard date at best.�
House Republicans blamed the inability to meet the deadline on what they described as a light work schedule of early votes and adjournment.
�I think Democrats are coming to the realization that fewer post offices need naming than they had previously thought. It was a fundamental miscalculation on their part,� quipped Amos Snead, a spokesman for Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
A House GOP aide added: �This majority couldn�t hit the broad side of a barn with a beach ball from point-blank, no less a target adjournment date when not a single spending bill has arrived on the president�s desk to date.
�Having said that, we�re heading for the biggest omnibus in history, and we�ll see it around the time kids start looking for Santa,� the aide added.
In July 2006, then-Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) proposed abolishing adjournment dates, citing the fact that they are never met on time and are arbitrary at best.
�It means nothing,� Boehner told reporters at the time. �You all know it means nothing because it really does mean nothing. Anyway, there is no reason to have a target adjournment on the schedule.�
hair purchase this Nokia C6-01
beautifulMind
06-26 10:16 AM
My lawyer filed my I-140 application in nebraska service center. Is that correct? shouldn't it be Texas Service Center for Florida. Does it matter which service center to apply to?
more...
kirupa
10-08 03:26 PM
Do the suggestions here help: http://silverlight.net/forums/p/4812/14415.aspx#14415 ?
hot The new Nokia C6 is the
Macaca
02-17 04:50 PM
Current Party Divisions of the House (http://www.house.gov)
1. 233 Democrats
2. 201 Republicans
3. 0 Independent
4. 1 Vacancy.
Resources
0. FAQ (http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legfaq.html).
0. Schedule (http://www.house.gov/house/House_Calendar.shtml).
1. Directory (http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html).
1. Representatives (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml).
1. Write to your representative (http://www.house.gov/writerep/).
2. Committees (http://www.house.gov/house/CommitteeWWW.shtml).
2. Leadership Offices (http://www.house.gov/house/orgs_pub_hse_ldr_www.shtml).
3. House floor proceedings (http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html).
3. Radio-Television Correspondent's Gallery (http://radiotv.house.gov/).
3. Press Gallery (http://www.house.gov/daily/hpg.htm).
4. Bill Text (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html).
4. Rules (http://www.rules.house.gov/).
1. 233 Democrats
2. 201 Republicans
3. 0 Independent
4. 1 Vacancy.
Resources
0. FAQ (http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legfaq.html).
0. Schedule (http://www.house.gov/house/House_Calendar.shtml).
1. Directory (http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html).
1. Representatives (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml).
1. Write to your representative (http://www.house.gov/writerep/).
2. Committees (http://www.house.gov/house/CommitteeWWW.shtml).
2. Leadership Offices (http://www.house.gov/house/orgs_pub_hse_ldr_www.shtml).
3. House floor proceedings (http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html).
3. Radio-Television Correspondent's Gallery (http://radiotv.house.gov/).
3. Press Gallery (http://www.house.gov/daily/hpg.htm).
4. Bill Text (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html).
4. Rules (http://www.rules.house.gov/).
more...
house nokia c6 01 price in india
desih1b
08-03 05:42 PM
Hello,
I need advise from gurus.
i have taken an appointment at the chennai consulate on aug 24th.
I have the old h1b approval valid till October 3 2006 to October 4 2007.
I have the new h1b approval valid till from october 5 2007 to october 4 2008.
I have taken the appointment for the new h1b approval. my question is:
since its valid from october 5 2007, can i come back to USA before october 5 2007? Do they give the visa stamp validity all the way from october 6 2006 to october 4 2008 since i have both the h1b approvals?
how does it work? we have to use only h1b approval? can somebody let me know they had the same situation?
thanks
desih1b
I need advise from gurus.
i have taken an appointment at the chennai consulate on aug 24th.
I have the old h1b approval valid till October 3 2006 to October 4 2007.
I have the new h1b approval valid till from october 5 2007 to october 4 2008.
I have taken the appointment for the new h1b approval. my question is:
since its valid from october 5 2007, can i come back to USA before october 5 2007? Do they give the visa stamp validity all the way from october 6 2006 to october 4 2008 since i have both the h1b approvals?
how does it work? we have to use only h1b approval? can somebody let me know they had the same situation?
thanks
desih1b
tattoo Nokia C6-01 retail price at
BharatRam
10-29 01:28 PM
Hi,
I didnot receive my EAD yet, the online status says that Approval notice was mailed on Oct. 1st.
I would like to know if anyone is facing the same issue.
Can anyone let me know how should i proceed in this regard?
Appreciate your time and concern.
Regards,
Bharat.
I didnot receive my EAD yet, the online status says that Approval notice was mailed on Oct. 1st.
I would like to know if anyone is facing the same issue.
Can anyone let me know how should i proceed in this regard?
Appreciate your time and concern.
Regards,
Bharat.
more...
pictures Nokia C6-01 SILVER
willIWill
11-17 07:31 PM
The latest processing times have been updated but not the Processing Trend Dashboard.
I believed after the USCIS Site re-design they were going to be prompt with these updates.
What is Strange in that is, the September data is showing as Zero ?!!
USCIS Processing Times (https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplay.do)
USCIS National Processing Volumes and Trends. (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/)
I believed after the USCIS Site re-design they were going to be prompt with these updates.
What is Strange in that is, the September data is showing as Zero ?!!
USCIS Processing Times (https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplay.do)
USCIS National Processing Volumes and Trends. (http://dashboard.uscis.gov/)
dresses nokia c6 01 price in india
rheoretro
08-21 04:06 PM
Online petitions are useless...petitions need signatures and names that can be verified with sufficient contact information. Otherwise, what stops some unscrupulous person from piling up a billion "signatures" in support of the petition?
http://www.petitiononline.com/legalimm/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/legalimm/petition.html
more...
makeup Cheap Prices - Nokia C6-01
alien007
02-15 08:34 AM
not a problem at all. but when u go for stamping, u should mention ur salary to be whatever is in your w2.
girlfriend nokia c6 01 price in india
Jaime
09-12 04:14 PM
The worrying news below talk about findings that the U.S. has lost influence abroad as a result of the Iraq war, thus encouraging detractors such as Russia and Iran...so, this begs the question: Is this really the time for the country to also encourage loss of influence at home, by promoting a massive and catastrophic Reverse Brain Drain? Ask most international students, they don't believe the U.S. is the future and thus they do not plan to remain here after their studies....if that is not "loss of influence at home" I don't know what is
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_re_eu/security_report
This is why we need to ALL GO TO WASHINGTON! AND TELL CONGRESS TO STOP THE REVERSE BRAIN DRAIN
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_re_eu/security_report
This is why we need to ALL GO TO WASHINGTON! AND TELL CONGRESS TO STOP THE REVERSE BRAIN DRAIN
hairstyles Nokia C6-01 Unlocked GSM Phone
prasadkadam@yahoo.com
08-06 11:01 AM
I have a green card. I have moved to India on 20 Aug 2007. Before going to India I had applied for my re-entry permit (I-131). The re-entry permit is valid from 31 Mar 2008 till 31 Mar 2010.
On 19 Aug 2009 I will be out of US for 2 years, so if I want to maintain my GC status before which date should I come to US and apply for re-entry permit, 20 Aug 2009 (the date of my US departure) or 31 Mar 2010 (expiration date of my travel document)?
On 19 Aug 2009 I will be out of US for 2 years, so if I want to maintain my GC status before which date should I come to US and apply for re-entry permit, 20 Aug 2009 (the date of my US departure) or 31 Mar 2010 (expiration date of my travel document)?
krish2005
08-18 12:46 PM
This is not tied to immigration but to the savings of some sort...
If this is a dupe post - please ignore.
This should certainly help if the deal is inked and save H1 and L1 holders some money.
PF rules may be tightened to squeeze US expats - Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/PF-rules-may-be-tightened-to-squeeze-US-expats/Article1-588281.aspx)
Excerpt:
If India and the US ink the deal, tens of thousands of Indians working in the US on H1B or L1 visas need not contribute to the US social security schemes and US expatriates need not contribute to an Indian provident fund.
If this is a dupe post - please ignore.
This should certainly help if the deal is inked and save H1 and L1 holders some money.
PF rules may be tightened to squeeze US expats - Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/PF-rules-may-be-tightened-to-squeeze-US-expats/Article1-588281.aspx)
Excerpt:
If India and the US ink the deal, tens of thousands of Indians working in the US on H1B or L1 visas need not contribute to the US social security schemes and US expatriates need not contribute to an Indian provident fund.
Macaca
05-19 07:54 AM
3 Months of Tense Talks Led to Immigration Deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) and ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Hours before a bipartisan deal on immigration policy was to be announced Thursday, a tenuous compromise was threatening to unravel, and tempers flared once again.
Just off the Senate floor, Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, both Republicans, exchanged sharp words, with Mr. McCain accusing his colleague of raising arcane legal issues to scuttle the deal. Mr. Cornyn retorted that he was entitled to his view and noted that Mr. McCain had spent more time campaigning for president than negotiating in recent weeks.
The senatorial dust-up, described by witnesses, was just one of the tense moments in remarkable negotiations over the last three months that resulted in this week�s accord. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who oversaw the talks, compared them to a floating craps game, with a changing cast of characters and shifting sites.
Lawmakers and staff members who participated said passions occasionally ran high in the dozens of meetings, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes using his temper as a negotiating tactic. Senators who had spent hours anguishing over the smallest details had little patience for colleagues who made brief appearances to offer their views.
�New people came in and wanted to revisit the whole deal,� Mr. Specter said. �That happened all the time. It was very frustrating.�
In the end, negotiators overcame political divisions and some level of distrust to produce the agreement that will be debated in the Senate beginning next week. Lawmakers said they forged bonds partly through the telling of personal stories about their own family roots, as well as long hours spent together and the prospect that the bill might be a last chance at reaching consensus on a major national problem.
�It was like waiting for a baby to be born,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about the negotiations. �On occasion, it was like being in mediation with a divorced couple. It was like being at camp with your buddies. It was feeling like a part of history.�
As difficult as the negotiations were, they might ultimately seem tame compared with the fight the authors of the plan now face. Before the language of the bill was even published, the proposal � a major domestic objective of the Bush administration � was under attack from the right for allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship and from the left for dividing families. The offices of the negotiators were under siege from critics who had the phones ringing endlessly.
�It is real easy to demagogue this thing, and some people probably won�t be able to help themselves,� said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and another key participant in the talks. �We are going to have to stick together on the fundamentals of this agreement.�
The talks had their genesis in last year�s failure on immigration after House Republicans essentially chose to ignore a bill passed by the Senate that conservatives derided as amnesty since it would have allowed some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain and eventually qualify to be citizens.
President Bush helped plant the seeds of this year�s negotiations on Jan. 8, at a White House event celebrating the fifth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Bush pulled aside Senator Kennedy, and they went into a room off the Oval Office to talk about immigration.
A month later, Senator Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona who would become an important figure in striking the deal, began meeting with other Republicans and administration officials to explore ways to find a legislative response to an issue with potent political and humanitarian ramifications.
When those talks progressed far enough, the Republicans on March 28 invited in Democrats like Mr. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of immigration changes, and Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. What followed was a series of meetings around the Capitol, typically on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, as the lawmakers, staff members, White House officials and two or three cabinet secretaries immersed themselves in immigration rules as part of unusually direct high-level negotiations.
�To take an issue and basically start from scratch and write it from the bottom up is something I haven�t seen done in a really long time,� said Candida Wolff, chief of Congressional relations for the White House.
The first big hurdle was cleared a few weeks ago when the negotiators settled on what they called the grand bargain, the main outlines of the issues they were going to address. Major elements included border security improvements and other measures that would have to be undertaken before new citizenship programs were put in place; potential legal status for millions of illegal immigrants; new visas for hundreds of thousands of temporary workers; and clearing a backlog of family applicants for residency.
Republicans also won support for a new �merit-based system of immigration,� which would give more weight to job skills and education and less to family ties. The negotiators decided to adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of foreign citizens seeking permission to immigrate to the United States.
No question was too small for the senators. They asked: How many points should be awarded to a refrigerator mechanic with a certificate from a community college?
The negotiations were a roller coaster ride that continued until the deal was announced Thursday, with negotiators expressing despair one day and optimism the next.
�Wednesday evening was one of the most important moments,� Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. �The mood and the atmosphere were good. You got a feeling that maybe this would all be possible. But on Thursday morning, it suddenly deteriorated again.� He told his colleagues that �it�s imperative that we announce an agreement� on Thursday afternoon, or else they could lose momentum. The announcement was made.
In some respects, the lawmakers benefited from the Congressional focus on the Iraq war as they were able to negotiate below the radar, avoiding the disclosure of every twist and turn in the talks and pressure from influential interest groups. Those involved also said the deep participation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was vital.
The senators who put together the bill say they have their own reservations about aspects of it. And some of the regular participants, including Senators Cornyn and Menendez, have backed away from endorsing it. But those who have embraced the bill say they intend to see it through.
�We made a pact,� said Mr. Specter, who was referred to as Mr. Chairman even though Democrats control Congress. �We will stick together even on provisions we don�t like. We are a long way from home in getting this through the Senate.�
No comments:
Post a Comment