tanyatanya
08-07 09:46 PM
Hi,
I am currently on H3 visa. My 2-yr term is coming to an end. My company had initially told me that they would find me a job internally and then relocate me to another location outside of the US after my training ends.
However, the company has not been able to find me anything in other regions, which essentially means I will be laid off. I want to know if the company is liable to pay me severance / air tickets back to my home country??
My employer is currently saying that they are not responsible for my airfare. That provision is only for H1B's. However, if the intent of H3 visa was to bring me for training and transfer me so that I could use that knowledge somewhere else. Even in the H-3 filing papers my company stated that their intent was to provide me employment in other regions after the end of the training. I don't understand how can they leave me stranded. They should be liable for something (severance, airfare)??
Please reply if you have any advice.
I am currently on H3 visa. My 2-yr term is coming to an end. My company had initially told me that they would find me a job internally and then relocate me to another location outside of the US after my training ends.
However, the company has not been able to find me anything in other regions, which essentially means I will be laid off. I want to know if the company is liable to pay me severance / air tickets back to my home country??
My employer is currently saying that they are not responsible for my airfare. That provision is only for H1B's. However, if the intent of H3 visa was to bring me for training and transfer me so that I could use that knowledge somewhere else. Even in the H-3 filing papers my company stated that their intent was to provide me employment in other regions after the end of the training. I don't understand how can they leave me stranded. They should be liable for something (severance, airfare)??
Please reply if you have any advice.
wallpaper Lady Gaga at HMV | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
cityfisher
07-26 09:43 AM
I read some posts on this forum that some people have successfully changed their EB category. Please help answer my question.THANKs.
2011 Lady Gaga – Scheibe (Born This
jaybirch
11-25 02:35 PM
i've already mac'd her good (i think) :D
she's my girlfriend
she's my girlfriend
more...
sxk
05-18 10:02 AM
Here is my scenario;
My ex employer (ABC) applied for my green card in 2006. In 2007, I got my 140 approved and I applied for 485. In 2009, I changed jobs using my EAD. ABC still holds my H-1b. Also, I did not file for AC21 yet.
ABC still owes me close to 25k in back pay. I want to report them to Dept of labor and get my money back. What are my options and what are the ramifications of doing so on my green card process?
Questions
If ABC revoked my 140, what should I do? Can I still renew my EAD and AP and continue with my employment in US? My current company is a fortune 20 company and they will support me with any documentation needed?
Since, ABC still holds my h1b, aren't they liable to pay me till date?
Please advice
My ex employer (ABC) applied for my green card in 2006. In 2007, I got my 140 approved and I applied for 485. In 2009, I changed jobs using my EAD. ABC still holds my H-1b. Also, I did not file for AC21 yet.
ABC still owes me close to 25k in back pay. I want to report them to Dept of labor and get my money back. What are my options and what are the ramifications of doing so on my green card process?
Questions
If ABC revoked my 140, what should I do? Can I still renew my EAD and AP and continue with my employment in US? My current company is a fortune 20 company and they will support me with any documentation needed?
Since, ABC still holds my h1b, aren't they liable to pay me till date?
Please advice
NIW_Engineer
03-23 02:03 PM
I think if she didn't indicate that she intended to do CP in her I-140, but rather indicated she intended to do AOS in the US, then it will be a pain in the neck to switch to CP
more...
abhisam
07-19 06:00 PM
My I-485 application was filed under EB3 category when I was working for my previous employer (PD - October 2006). I changed my job in August 2008, but never sent any documentation for AC21. I now have close to 8 years of experience and also a masters degree (MBA) from a reputed univeristy here in the US.
Now that EB2 dates are so close to October 2006, is there anyway I can port my application from EB3 to EB2? I can initiate this discussion with my current employer and may be able to convince them to help me. But I want to know exactly what needs to be done.
Thanks a lot in advance for your assistance in this matter!
- abhisam
Now that EB2 dates are so close to October 2006, is there anyway I can port my application from EB3 to EB2? I can initiate this discussion with my current employer and may be able to convince them to help me. But I want to know exactly what needs to be done.
Thanks a lot in advance for your assistance in this matter!
- abhisam
2010 Lady Gaga - Scheibe
JeffDG
03-30 11:41 AM
I initially voted in favour of this, but on further reflection, I think this is bad policy and urge others to not support this.
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
Giving I-485 benefits to people without current PDs is a bad idea. It creates a class of immigrants who are neither non-immigrant visa holders (h1b) nor are they lawful permanent residents (i-551) with a set of rights that falls into neither category. The AoS pending status is intended as a short-duration temporary "gap" coverage for people who are a matter of months from having actual I-551 rights.
Essentially, this proposal aims to make every month into the July 2007 fiasco. In addition, and this is the truly horrible part of it, relieves US employers of the pressure and costs they feel now, extending H1Bs every 3 years. That means that the only allies that legal EB immigrants have (US Employers who require their services) are detached from the immigrants themselves...they no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will stop whatever pressure they are bringing to bear now upon Congresscritters and Senators to increase the number of EB visas available.
Disconnecting the interests of foreign-national employees from their US employers will weaken the political position of the foreign-national employees. We cannot vote or contribute to campaigns, our employers however, can do both. If employees are shifted to EADs and APs, with no further involvement of employers in their immigration status needed, then those employers become disconnected from the process, and the one and only ally the legal immigrant has is no longer interested. That's a horrible thing for the immigrant to advocate.
I strongly urge IV to back away from this proposal, as it is not in the long-term interests of the EB Immigrant community. I urge IV to instead focus their resources on items that will help immigrants long term, like increasing the number of EB visas available through initiatives like eliminating the DV program and allocating the visas to EB applicants.
more...
ek_akela
01-26 04:13 PM
Folks,
I have a situation where I need to dump my emp after working for almost 6 years as I am getting new opportunity which requires emp to pay me on 1099(instead of W2). Can it be possible and also can I avoid opening LLC. Also, not sure if in the near future if I get a RFE how that would go with current situation
thanks
I have a situation where I need to dump my emp after working for almost 6 years as I am getting new opportunity which requires emp to pay me on 1099(instead of W2). Can it be possible and also can I avoid opening LLC. Also, not sure if in the near future if I get a RFE how that would go with current situation
thanks
hair lady gaga polaroid glasses.
Sadatj
04-16 03:07 AM
I am applying for H4 visa after my recent marriage with an H1B visa holder in USA. I am currently filling out the online DS160 form but stuck at the following stage: "travel information"
In the purpose of trip to USA question: the given options are business, travel or student visas, so i selected the option: "other". On selecting this, the form loads a list of further options in order to SPECIFY: the H4 option (dependent of H1B holder) is not given in this list. The nearest applicable option is "temporary employee H1, H2". When I choose this one, then at a much later stage in the application, in the section titled "temporary work visa information" the form starts to ask information on my supposed employer etc, which is clearly UN-applicable in my case, as I am NOT applying for an H1 or H2 visa. Kindly help me out, on how to proceed with DS160 in such a situation. Waiting for reply with anticipatory thanks. Sadatj.
In the purpose of trip to USA question: the given options are business, travel or student visas, so i selected the option: "other". On selecting this, the form loads a list of further options in order to SPECIFY: the H4 option (dependent of H1B holder) is not given in this list. The nearest applicable option is "temporary employee H1, H2". When I choose this one, then at a much later stage in the application, in the section titled "temporary work visa information" the form starts to ask information on my supposed employer etc, which is clearly UN-applicable in my case, as I am NOT applying for an H1 or H2 visa. Kindly help me out, on how to proceed with DS160 in such a situation. Waiting for reply with anticipatory thanks. Sadatj.
more...
dazed
03-18 03:42 PM
My wife is currently on H4 and we have EAD/AP, though not used. She is planning to apply for H1 with new employer.
When approved, does she need to leave the country and get visa stamped before starting employment.
If she leaves the country and enters using the AP document, will it cause any issues with her H1. Any input will be appreciated. Thank you.
When approved, does she need to leave the country and get visa stamped before starting employment.
If she leaves the country and enters using the AP document, will it cause any issues with her H1. Any input will be appreciated. Thank you.
hot lady gaga polaroid glasses.
ponvas
10-12 12:36 AM
Those who got receipt dated oct 2nd filed in NSC will not see their cases online
more...
house Lady Gaga#39;s Born This Way
GCard_Dream
03-25 01:59 PM
I just need to ask one more time. Please advise if you know any good immigration attorney in Arizona.
tattoo lady gaga scheibe remix
Macaca
02-17 04:50 PM
Resources
Learn about Congress (http://clerkkids.house.gov/congress/index.html)
Glossary (http://clerkkids.house.gov/glossary/index.html)
Open Congress (http://www.opencongress.org/)
Congress.org (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/)
How laws are enacted once they have been passed (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/enactment/enactlawtoc.html)
White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/)
Learn about Congress (http://clerkkids.house.gov/congress/index.html)
Glossary (http://clerkkids.house.gov/glossary/index.html)
Open Congress (http://www.opencongress.org/)
Congress.org (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/)
How laws are enacted once they have been passed (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/enactment/enactlawtoc.html)
White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/)
more...
pictures Lady Gaga#39;s Polaroid
voldemar
02-06 09:35 PM
My friend has his I-485 filed and has got EAD/AP, but the priority date is so behind, that he has no chance of getting a green card before his marriage. So, as I understand he should be able to bring his wife on H4 (as long as he maintains H1). My question is: does he have to re-file for I-485 to include his wife and if so will the priority date remain the same as the first application?She needs to file her own I-485 but only when PD become current. She has the same PD as primary applicant.
dresses lady gaga 2011 cfda.
Steeler
01-23 07:43 PM
Hi does anyone know the current processing time for AP at the NSC. The website says 3 months but has anyone got it sooner?
I applied on Jan 9, 2009..when can I expect it by?
Thanks
I applied on Jan 9, 2009..when can I expect it by?
Thanks
more...
makeup Meat covered Lady Gaga is
paragpujara
04-11 02:41 PM
I have been working for Everest Business Solutions, Inc since 09/2005. They are very professional. So far i am happy with them and they filed my GC as they promised. Regular in Pay and help you out whenever needed. My wife is also working for the same company.
Let me know if you need further information.
Let me know if you need further information.
girlfriend pictures Lady GaGa is the
sac-r-ten
12-23 12:12 PM
ironically silent follower became vocal after the wait-is-over.
congrats buddy. i think you should wait for few more days, the way USCIS works you might have your Cards and then a welcome notice following it. LOL.
enjoy the holidays....
congrats buddy. i think you should wait for few more days, the way USCIS works you might have your Cards and then a welcome notice following it. LOL.
enjoy the holidays....
hairstyles Lady Gaga at HMV | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
roseball
09-12 08:20 PM
Hello,
I got my I-140 Approved (EB3 - Jan 2004) with Company A. Can i use the approval notice and get my H1B extended for 3 years from a different company ? Please advice as this will help me a lot.
Thanks in advance:confused::rolleyes:
- Head2GC
Yes, I did it a few months ago.
I got my I-140 Approved (EB3 - Jan 2004) with Company A. Can i use the approval notice and get my H1B extended for 3 years from a different company ? Please advice as this will help me a lot.
Thanks in advance:confused::rolleyes:
- Head2GC
Yes, I did it a few months ago.
pro_designer4u
09-09 07:15 PM
If you need website, logo, corporate id, banner and brochure design, please e-mail me to design@prodesigner4u.com.
You can see some samples of our works at prodesigner4u.com (http://prodesigner4u.com/). Coding and flash are available.
You can see some samples of our works at prodesigner4u.com (http://prodesigner4u.com/). Coding and flash are available.
No comments:
Post a Comment