uslegals
07-18 12:58 PM
Hello friends -
My Receipt notice states that RECEIVED DATE for my 485 is July 17, 2007 and the NOTICE DATE is September 14, 2007.
In my USCIS online account when my click on my 485 RECEIPT No. it states -"CASE recd. & pending" ...On September 14, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice......
Shouldn't this state that they recd. the case on July 17, 2007.?? Can it be true that their system is showing a recd. date of 9/14 when actually the recd. date on the actual notice/797 is 7/17/07.
How many folks are seeing this.?? Is this how it is supposed to be..I mean is it normal for them to generate a default message like this using the NOTICE DATE when you click ur case #..??
CHEERS.!
My Receipt notice states that RECEIVED DATE for my 485 is July 17, 2007 and the NOTICE DATE is September 14, 2007.
In my USCIS online account when my click on my 485 RECEIPT No. it states -"CASE recd. & pending" ...On September 14, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice......
Shouldn't this state that they recd. the case on July 17, 2007.?? Can it be true that their system is showing a recd. date of 9/14 when actually the recd. date on the actual notice/797 is 7/17/07.
How many folks are seeing this.?? Is this how it is supposed to be..I mean is it normal for them to generate a default message like this using the NOTICE DATE when you click ur case #..??
CHEERS.!
wallpaper from the Kennedy compound
Blog Feeds
11-20 03:12 AM
Until recently, travelers to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Permanent Program have enjoyed seemingly hassle-free entry to the United States. If you hail from (or now hold citizenship in) one of 35 favored countries, the process is simple. Go online to a website, ESTA (Electronic System of Travel Authorization), answer a few questions, get a green light to proceed, purchase a round-trip ticket and hop on a plane with just your passport as your entry document. Sure you waive a host of procedural rights, but with the value of the dollar plummeting, the shopping bargains in the U.S. are...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/11/589418-510549.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/11/589418-510549.html)
hsm2007
10-12 09:09 PM
Guys,
I had received FP notice 2 days ago and my FP date is after 3 weeks. I was getting ready to try to do it early but I just received Card Production Ordered email for both my spouse and myself. What do I do now? Do I need to still go for the FP after 3 weeks.
I am not sure why they would send me the FP notice if they wanted to approve my GC.
I had received FP notice 2 days ago and my FP date is after 3 weeks. I was getting ready to try to do it early but I just received Card Production Ordered email for both my spouse and myself. What do I do now? Do I need to still go for the FP after 3 weeks.
I am not sure why they would send me the FP notice if they wanted to approve my GC.
2011 martha stewart paper flowers
dbonneau
07-29 03:45 PM
Hello,
I would like to prepare for the worst scenario that might happen in near future since I only got about two months of H1B
I didn't even know what " RFE" was until I recently received it. From my first H1B app to LC, things have gone so smoothly.. but now I am starting to realize that this could be jeopardize my whole career in U.S if I don't get approved from I140.
When I started my PERM processing last year,my lawyer made sound so easy about getting a GC that the paralegal who handles my case has never told me anything about" if things goes wrong",which I am afraid that it might be happen soon...
If I get denied from I140, Is there a way to extend my H1B ? or any other way to keep my job in U.S legally ? Could anyone give me some advice ?
my status:
Apr 2009 Priority Date EB2
May 2010 I140 EB2 filed
May 2010 I1485 filed
July 2010 I140 RFE
H1B 6th year (exp. OCT1 2010)
I would like to prepare for the worst scenario that might happen in near future since I only got about two months of H1B
I didn't even know what " RFE" was until I recently received it. From my first H1B app to LC, things have gone so smoothly.. but now I am starting to realize that this could be jeopardize my whole career in U.S if I don't get approved from I140.
When I started my PERM processing last year,my lawyer made sound so easy about getting a GC that the paralegal who handles my case has never told me anything about" if things goes wrong",which I am afraid that it might be happen soon...
If I get denied from I140, Is there a way to extend my H1B ? or any other way to keep my job in U.S legally ? Could anyone give me some advice ?
my status:
Apr 2009 Priority Date EB2
May 2010 I140 EB2 filed
May 2010 I1485 filed
July 2010 I140 RFE
H1B 6th year (exp. OCT1 2010)
more...
man-woman-and-gc
04-20 06:20 PM
Hi,
My brother is coming to USA on L1 visa.
His wife has a valid H1-B stamped. However, her employer cannot send her to US for the next 6-7 months.
Can she come to US on L2 and then transfer her H1-B if whe finds a job here in US? Or will her H1-B get immidiately cancelled as soon as she enters US on L2?
Thanks.
My brother is coming to USA on L1 visa.
His wife has a valid H1-B stamped. However, her employer cannot send her to US for the next 6-7 months.
Can she come to US on L2 and then transfer her H1-B if whe finds a job here in US? Or will her H1-B get immidiately cancelled as soon as she enters US on L2?
Thanks.
Leo07
02-08 12:09 PM
Your obligations to IRS does not interfere with your GC process. This is not a "work" that you are getting paid for, outside your LCA.
It is very common and people before you have faced it and people after you will face it. Calm down and take this one worry off your list.
It is very common and people before you have faced it and people after you will face it. Calm down and take this one worry off your list.
more...
ramus
01-27 09:42 AM
Please join our NC IV group and you will get all info from our NC members.
please reply!!!!
please reply!!!!
2010 I love the chinoiserie lights
anilsal
06-14 11:36 PM
For the marriage, do you have any evidence of the marriage happening (like you can get something from the priest). You then go to the local registrar of marriage and show him the evidence. He will register the marriage and give you an official certificate. Your relatives in your home country should help you with this procedure.
For the DOB, look for FAQ on affidavits. Every immigration website has info on this.
For the DOB, look for FAQ on affidavits. Every immigration website has info on this.
more...
apnair2002
10-30 06:32 AM
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/immigration_is_.html
(Are you feeling the impact of immigration? What is life like for an illegal immigrant living in the USA, and for others in the communities where he or she works and lives? We�re interested in hearing your experiences. Send comments to editor@usatoday.com or fax to 703-854-2053. Please include your contact number, city and state for verification purposes. Comments will be considered for an ongoing conversation in letters and online.)
(Are you feeling the impact of immigration? What is life like for an illegal immigrant living in the USA, and for others in the communities where he or she works and lives? We�re interested in hearing your experiences. Send comments to editor@usatoday.com or fax to 703-854-2053. Please include your contact number, city and state for verification purposes. Comments will be considered for an ongoing conversation in letters and online.)
hair The island on which Martha#39;s
sunny1000
01-15 12:42 AM
Hi Guys,
A friend of mine from India is getting married to a US citizen here. She is coming here on a Fiancee visa (i believe K or V one of them). Does anyone know how long it takes to get a Green Card if you marry a Citizen?
Any help will be appreciated.
I think it is within 6 months. Check the USCIS website for the I130 petition time frame (CSC).
A friend of mine from India is getting married to a US citizen here. She is coming here on a Fiancee visa (i believe K or V one of them). Does anyone know how long it takes to get a Green Card if you marry a Citizen?
Any help will be appreciated.
I think it is within 6 months. Check the USCIS website for the I130 petition time frame (CSC).
more...
Blog Feeds
08-27 12:00 PM
Cuban-born Andres Alonso is the CEO of the Baltimore City Schools. Alonso graduated from Columbia University before going on to get a law degree and a doctorate in education at Harvard. Alonso was interviewed on NBC News last night about how federal stimulus money is helping to keep his school system running smoothly this year despite the economy. Alonso brings an interesting background to the job having worked for one of the top law firms in Washington, DC as well as a teacher in inner city Newark, New Jersey. He was the deputy chancellor of the New York City schools...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/immigrant-of-the-day-andres-alonso-educator.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/immigrant-of-the-day-andres-alonso-educator.html)
hot change Martha#39;s Vineyard
Johnwalton
05-15 12:04 PM
Silverlight is the latest version of software.there are facing me some problem to use this like that,Seems like xml is not feeding in. Any pointers or suggested resources would be much helpful.
more...
house the Kennedy compound and
Blog Feeds
11-03 07:30 PM
An interesting discussion that questions whether Dobbs is in it just for ratings and whether his recent shooting incident was distorted for publicity:
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/cnns-howard-kurtz-discusses-dobbs-controversies.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/cnns-howard-kurtz-discusses-dobbs-controversies.html)
tattoo Kennedy Compound
bijualex29
05-29 02:09 PM
Where is the county Cap in this bill?
more...
pictures Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Macaca
06-01 07:26 PM
Pelosi�s Order in the House (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01web-hulse.html) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01web-hulse.html), June 1, 2007
The differences between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, could not be more striking.
He is a burly former wrestling coach, a conservative Republican from small-town Illinois who usually ran from the microphones. She is the designer-clad member of a political family, a wealthy liberal from San Francisco who sees herself as a top party spokeswoman.
But what could turn out to be their defining contrast was exhibited on May 24, when Ms. Pelosi allowed the Iraq war spending bill to clear the House with predominantly Republican votes while most Democrats � including her � opposed it. It was a marked departure from the principle that guided Mr. Hastert during his years as speaker.
Mr. Hastert was an advocate of governing the House by a �majority of the majority� � a standard he thought best served the interests of his Republican members and, by extension, the nation. Just months into her tenure, Ms. Pelosi has shown she will deviate from that approach, balancing the potential of significant rewards against big risks.
The rewards could come from success in winning approval of major legislation that reaches beyond party label. Critics of Mr. Hastert said his self-imposed rule prevented the House from considering centrist social and economic measures that, in their view, could have benefited both parties. It is likely, for instance, that a coalition existed in the House last year to pass an immigration overhaul that Republicans and Democrats could have hailed going into the elections. But strong opposition from a majority of the majority derailed that idea.
The risks are related to party cohesion. If a leader such as Ms. Pelosi regularly cuts against the wishes of most of the people who put her in leadership, it stands to reason they would eventually wonder if new leadership was warranted. At a more subtle level, passing important bills with coalitions built outside party lines can expose and deepen fractures within them and sap the support of interest groups that can be essential to winning and holding onto power.
Republicans see internal problems for Democrats as they sort through how to govern. �The problem for Pelosi is that the majority of her majority still has a minority mindset,� said John Feehery, a lobbyist who was an adviser to Mr. Hastert. �They would rather protest than legislate. And that dynamic will weaken her control over the House in the long-run."
While some anti-war groups remain outraged at the war vote, many Democrats were not all that upset with the way she handled it. Through some procedural maneuvers, the speaker allowed Democrats to back a minimum wage increase and popular domestic spending and still vote against the war money. At the same time, Democrats got out of what the leadership saw as a political jam that could have left them being blamed for cutting off money to troops overseas.
The next test for Ms. Pelosi will come on looming votes over increased free trade. Many - perhaps most - House Democrats are leery of going along with the push by President Bush, free-trading Democrats and congressional Republicans for new trade deals that they believe ship jobs out of the country and lack labor and environmental safeguards.
To some veteran House Democrats, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement is a particularly bitter memory. A majority of then-minority Republicans joined with a minority of then-majority Democrats to pass the deal sought by President Bill Clinton. Quite a few Democrats believe that approval of the trade deal over the objections of organized labor diluted union support in 1994 and contributed to the loss of Congress by the Democrats that year. Ms. Pelosi was among 102 Democrats who backed the 1993 trade deal; 156 Democrats, including the majority leader and whip, opposed it.
Anti-trade Democrats are worried the war vote foreshadowed Ms. Pelosi making a similar trade move this year, forgetting the hard lessons of NAFTA. They promise that such a decision will stir strong resentment. Ms. Pelosi has urged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions, but she is making no guarantees that legislation must have majority Democratic backing.
�I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus,� she told reporters.
The differences between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, could not be more striking.
He is a burly former wrestling coach, a conservative Republican from small-town Illinois who usually ran from the microphones. She is the designer-clad member of a political family, a wealthy liberal from San Francisco who sees herself as a top party spokeswoman.
But what could turn out to be their defining contrast was exhibited on May 24, when Ms. Pelosi allowed the Iraq war spending bill to clear the House with predominantly Republican votes while most Democrats � including her � opposed it. It was a marked departure from the principle that guided Mr. Hastert during his years as speaker.
Mr. Hastert was an advocate of governing the House by a �majority of the majority� � a standard he thought best served the interests of his Republican members and, by extension, the nation. Just months into her tenure, Ms. Pelosi has shown she will deviate from that approach, balancing the potential of significant rewards against big risks.
The rewards could come from success in winning approval of major legislation that reaches beyond party label. Critics of Mr. Hastert said his self-imposed rule prevented the House from considering centrist social and economic measures that, in their view, could have benefited both parties. It is likely, for instance, that a coalition existed in the House last year to pass an immigration overhaul that Republicans and Democrats could have hailed going into the elections. But strong opposition from a majority of the majority derailed that idea.
The risks are related to party cohesion. If a leader such as Ms. Pelosi regularly cuts against the wishes of most of the people who put her in leadership, it stands to reason they would eventually wonder if new leadership was warranted. At a more subtle level, passing important bills with coalitions built outside party lines can expose and deepen fractures within them and sap the support of interest groups that can be essential to winning and holding onto power.
Republicans see internal problems for Democrats as they sort through how to govern. �The problem for Pelosi is that the majority of her majority still has a minority mindset,� said John Feehery, a lobbyist who was an adviser to Mr. Hastert. �They would rather protest than legislate. And that dynamic will weaken her control over the House in the long-run."
While some anti-war groups remain outraged at the war vote, many Democrats were not all that upset with the way she handled it. Through some procedural maneuvers, the speaker allowed Democrats to back a minimum wage increase and popular domestic spending and still vote against the war money. At the same time, Democrats got out of what the leadership saw as a political jam that could have left them being blamed for cutting off money to troops overseas.
The next test for Ms. Pelosi will come on looming votes over increased free trade. Many - perhaps most - House Democrats are leery of going along with the push by President Bush, free-trading Democrats and congressional Republicans for new trade deals that they believe ship jobs out of the country and lack labor and environmental safeguards.
To some veteran House Democrats, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement is a particularly bitter memory. A majority of then-minority Republicans joined with a minority of then-majority Democrats to pass the deal sought by President Bill Clinton. Quite a few Democrats believe that approval of the trade deal over the objections of organized labor diluted union support in 1994 and contributed to the loss of Congress by the Democrats that year. Ms. Pelosi was among 102 Democrats who backed the 1993 trade deal; 156 Democrats, including the majority leader and whip, opposed it.
Anti-trade Democrats are worried the war vote foreshadowed Ms. Pelosi making a similar trade move this year, forgetting the hard lessons of NAFTA. They promise that such a decision will stir strong resentment. Ms. Pelosi has urged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions, but she is making no guarantees that legislation must have majority Democratic backing.
�I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus,� she told reporters.
dresses Kennedy Compound and known
giddu
07-16 12:51 PM
For max impact rallies should be held same day same time in all major cities of US.
more...
makeup The Kennedy compound of three
Macaca
07-22 05:49 PM
Senate Comity Slips Away (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_9/news/19453-1.html) By Emily Pierce and Erin P. Billings, ROLL CALL STAFF, July 19, 2007
Though tensions between Democrats and Republicans have been festering since the beginning of the 110th Congress, this week�s Senate debate on the Iraq War has pushed the chamber to a new level of partisan acrimony, where even the most seasoned and collegial of Senate elders have abandoned traditional acts of decorum.
�The Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I�ve been here a long time,� Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said. �All modicum of courtesy has gone out the window.�
That statement came after a highly charged, all-night debate on a Democratic amendment to refocus the U.S. mission in Iraq and complete a troop drawdown by April 30, 2008. The amendment failed, 52-47, to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cited the Republicans� �obstructionist� tactics in his decision to scrap the entire debate on the Defense Department authorization bill.
Reid�s insistence not only on having repeated votes this year on pulling out of Iraq but also on having the overnight session contributed to the explosion of partisan tensions, some Senators said.
�I do think 36 hours with no sleep and the orchestration of a repeat debate of what we just got through two months ago weighed heavily on everybody,� Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said. �It was what it was, but there�s a lot of frustration. It�s a good time for a four-week break.�
Senate Republicans said the clearest evidence that the chamber�s traditional comity has evaporated is in Reid�s repeated decisions to prohibit GOP Senators from giving short speeches when they object to his unanimous consent requests. Reid first began using the tactic against a handful of GOP conservatives during last month�s bitterly fought immigration reform debate.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the most recent victim of that tactic, gave an indignant speech on the floor Wednesday to protest what he said was Reid�s lack of respect for fellow Senators.
Though Specter acknowledged that Senate rules do not afford lawmakers the right to give speeches following unanimous consent requests, the veteran Pennsylvania moderate said, �It has been common practice in this body to allow a Senator who reserves the right to object to make a statement as to why the objection is being lodged.�
Specter went on to ominously state that Reid�s insistence on the rules could come back to haunt him.
�Those practices I think are not only rude, but dictatorial,� he said. �And if those technical rules are applied � and any one of us can do it � this body will cease to function.�
Republican sources said that beyond Specter, both Lott and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) were taken aback this week when they were denied recognition typically afforded the minority. Lott and Specter � Senators who often work with Reid and Democrats on the floor and on legislation � were particularly incensed with what they viewed as Reid�s disregard of Senate decorum and protocol.
Specter said that Lott declined Reid�s offer to publicly apologize.
One senior Republican aide said Reid � by refusing to allow GOP Senators the opportunity to answer him when addressed � sent a clear signal to the minority of, �To heck with you, your views don�t matter.�
�Not only is violating common courtesy unlike him, it�s not conducive to running the Senate in an effective manner,� the aide said of Reid.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who led the GOP debate on the Defense measure, said what occurred over the course of the past two days � and the past two weeks � demonstrated that the �climate here is very bad� and is �part of the whole environment� of the Senate these days. The Iraq War is just one factor contributing to the heightened partisanship in the chamber, McCain added.
But it isn�t just Republicans who are complaining about the breakdown of the chamber�s otherwise civil atmosphere. Senate Democrats countered that they also have been on the receiving end of what they consider ungracious behavior by their GOP colleagues.
In what appeared to be a slap at Democrats on Wednesday, McConnell turned his back on Reid and the Democratic side of the chamber while speaking about the Democratic amendment to refocus the U.S. mission in Iraq.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the Minority Leader was simply addressing his fellow Republicans as he often does when many are gathered in the chamber. More than 70 Senators � roughly half Republicans, half Democrats � were present for the post-vote debate.
But Senate Democrats have said repeatedly that they are being forced to use heavy-handed tactics because the minority refuses to adhere to the traditional courtesy of allowing the Majority Leader to conduct the bulk of the Senate�s business without first having to file procedural motions to limit debate. Republicans have objected to a little more than half of Reid�s requests to begin debate on both controversial and bipartisan bills, resulting in Reid having to file time-consuming cloture motions to cut off prospective filibusters.
�Who�s been asking for these cloture votes?� asked an exasperated Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). �Republicans.�
McConnell has �lost control of his caucus on this matter,� Durbin said of what he believes is McConnell�s inability to convince conservatives in the Republican Conference to pick their battles.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley declined to comment specifically on why Reid has been prohibiting GOP Senators from making short objection speeches, but he indicated that Democrats need to fight back against the GOP�s blocking strategy.
�It�s become pretty evident in recent weeks that there�s been a decision by the Republican leadership to block the Senate from doing all but the most routine and noncontroversial legislation,� Manley said.
Meanwhile, debate on the Defense bill has stopped for the time being, with Reid saying he would bring it back up once it is possible to �pass a Defense authorization bill, but with a deadline dealing with Iraq.�
For the moment, Democrats have been able to put a lock on the Republicans� procedural objections by bringing up a higher education reconciliation bill that is privileged under the rules and cannot be filibustered. But that measure was taken up only after Republicans blocked Reid from quickly beginning debate on a Homeland Security spending bill.
Reid has tasked Durbin with negotiating a deal with Lott, McCain and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on how to resume consideration of the Defense measure.
However, McCain questioned whether the DOD bill would rear its head again in the next two weeks: �Without a certain level of cooperation it�s almost impossible. It will be difficult to make it out in time, make it out by August. And the fiscal year ends the first of October.�
Though tensions between Democrats and Republicans have been festering since the beginning of the 110th Congress, this week�s Senate debate on the Iraq War has pushed the chamber to a new level of partisan acrimony, where even the most seasoned and collegial of Senate elders have abandoned traditional acts of decorum.
�The Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I�ve been here a long time,� Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said. �All modicum of courtesy has gone out the window.�
That statement came after a highly charged, all-night debate on a Democratic amendment to refocus the U.S. mission in Iraq and complete a troop drawdown by April 30, 2008. The amendment failed, 52-47, to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cited the Republicans� �obstructionist� tactics in his decision to scrap the entire debate on the Defense Department authorization bill.
Reid�s insistence not only on having repeated votes this year on pulling out of Iraq but also on having the overnight session contributed to the explosion of partisan tensions, some Senators said.
�I do think 36 hours with no sleep and the orchestration of a repeat debate of what we just got through two months ago weighed heavily on everybody,� Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said. �It was what it was, but there�s a lot of frustration. It�s a good time for a four-week break.�
Senate Republicans said the clearest evidence that the chamber�s traditional comity has evaporated is in Reid�s repeated decisions to prohibit GOP Senators from giving short speeches when they object to his unanimous consent requests. Reid first began using the tactic against a handful of GOP conservatives during last month�s bitterly fought immigration reform debate.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the most recent victim of that tactic, gave an indignant speech on the floor Wednesday to protest what he said was Reid�s lack of respect for fellow Senators.
Though Specter acknowledged that Senate rules do not afford lawmakers the right to give speeches following unanimous consent requests, the veteran Pennsylvania moderate said, �It has been common practice in this body to allow a Senator who reserves the right to object to make a statement as to why the objection is being lodged.�
Specter went on to ominously state that Reid�s insistence on the rules could come back to haunt him.
�Those practices I think are not only rude, but dictatorial,� he said. �And if those technical rules are applied � and any one of us can do it � this body will cease to function.�
Republican sources said that beyond Specter, both Lott and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) were taken aback this week when they were denied recognition typically afforded the minority. Lott and Specter � Senators who often work with Reid and Democrats on the floor and on legislation � were particularly incensed with what they viewed as Reid�s disregard of Senate decorum and protocol.
Specter said that Lott declined Reid�s offer to publicly apologize.
One senior Republican aide said Reid � by refusing to allow GOP Senators the opportunity to answer him when addressed � sent a clear signal to the minority of, �To heck with you, your views don�t matter.�
�Not only is violating common courtesy unlike him, it�s not conducive to running the Senate in an effective manner,� the aide said of Reid.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who led the GOP debate on the Defense measure, said what occurred over the course of the past two days � and the past two weeks � demonstrated that the �climate here is very bad� and is �part of the whole environment� of the Senate these days. The Iraq War is just one factor contributing to the heightened partisanship in the chamber, McCain added.
But it isn�t just Republicans who are complaining about the breakdown of the chamber�s otherwise civil atmosphere. Senate Democrats countered that they also have been on the receiving end of what they consider ungracious behavior by their GOP colleagues.
In what appeared to be a slap at Democrats on Wednesday, McConnell turned his back on Reid and the Democratic side of the chamber while speaking about the Democratic amendment to refocus the U.S. mission in Iraq.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the Minority Leader was simply addressing his fellow Republicans as he often does when many are gathered in the chamber. More than 70 Senators � roughly half Republicans, half Democrats � were present for the post-vote debate.
But Senate Democrats have said repeatedly that they are being forced to use heavy-handed tactics because the minority refuses to adhere to the traditional courtesy of allowing the Majority Leader to conduct the bulk of the Senate�s business without first having to file procedural motions to limit debate. Republicans have objected to a little more than half of Reid�s requests to begin debate on both controversial and bipartisan bills, resulting in Reid having to file time-consuming cloture motions to cut off prospective filibusters.
�Who�s been asking for these cloture votes?� asked an exasperated Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). �Republicans.�
McConnell has �lost control of his caucus on this matter,� Durbin said of what he believes is McConnell�s inability to convince conservatives in the Republican Conference to pick their battles.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley declined to comment specifically on why Reid has been prohibiting GOP Senators from making short objection speeches, but he indicated that Democrats need to fight back against the GOP�s blocking strategy.
�It�s become pretty evident in recent weeks that there�s been a decision by the Republican leadership to block the Senate from doing all but the most routine and noncontroversial legislation,� Manley said.
Meanwhile, debate on the Defense bill has stopped for the time being, with Reid saying he would bring it back up once it is possible to �pass a Defense authorization bill, but with a deadline dealing with Iraq.�
For the moment, Democrats have been able to put a lock on the Republicans� procedural objections by bringing up a higher education reconciliation bill that is privileged under the rules and cannot be filibustered. But that measure was taken up only after Republicans blocked Reid from quickly beginning debate on a Homeland Security spending bill.
Reid has tasked Durbin with negotiating a deal with Lott, McCain and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on how to resume consideration of the Defense measure.
However, McCain questioned whether the DOD bill would rear its head again in the next two weeks: �Without a certain level of cooperation it�s almost impossible. It will be difficult to make it out in time, make it out by August. And the fiscal year ends the first of October.�
girlfriend kennedy compound houses. to Kennedy Compound it UP.
nomadlhr
05-27 02:02 AM
I was selected in H1b lottery last year however my petition was sent back to DSH for revocation.
I emailed US embassy in Pakistan a couple of time however did not receive any response from them as yet on my case status. So my petition has been returned to DSH but H1b visa has not been rejected yet.
Now another company is offering me a job. My question is that can I use my previous petition and my new employer can apply for H1b without applying for the H1B lottery again. This will be switching employer before H1b Visa approval OR is it that I will have to wait until some decision is taken on my returned petition to DSH?
Any suggestions will be much appreciated!!
I emailed US embassy in Pakistan a couple of time however did not receive any response from them as yet on my case status. So my petition has been returned to DSH but H1b visa has not been rejected yet.
Now another company is offering me a job. My question is that can I use my previous petition and my new employer can apply for H1b without applying for the H1B lottery again. This will be switching employer before H1b Visa approval OR is it that I will have to wait until some decision is taken on my returned petition to DSH?
Any suggestions will be much appreciated!!
hairstyles Kennedy Compound
jonty_11
07-19 05:09 PM
please post articles in News Article thread..
lavanya_7
05-14 06:21 AM
I got my H1-B visa on June 29, 2005 , I came to india on Jan 2009 . From Jan 2009 till now I have been staying in India , bcoz I was taking care of my new born daughter, now she is grown up and now I am planning to start working in US. Right now I got my H4 visa .
I came to know from someone that H1-B filing for this year was over in Jan 2011, so if I need to file a new H1-b , I have to file now and I will be eligible to work after Oct 1 this year. Is it true ? Is it not possible that a company files for a new H1-B under premium processing and I start working after 2 weeks of filing ? I don't want to wait that long(Oct 1) to work , I have few oppurinities coming up where I may get selected.
I have stayed in india from Jan 2009 till APril 2011. Now I am on H4 visa in US. Can I get a extension of my previous H1-B visa filed on June 2005?
I want to work ASAP.
I came to know from someone that H1-B filing for this year was over in Jan 2011, so if I need to file a new H1-b , I have to file now and I will be eligible to work after Oct 1 this year. Is it true ? Is it not possible that a company files for a new H1-B under premium processing and I start working after 2 weeks of filing ? I don't want to wait that long(Oct 1) to work , I have few oppurinities coming up where I may get selected.
I have stayed in india from Jan 2009 till APril 2011. Now I am on H4 visa in US. Can I get a extension of my previous H1-B visa filed on June 2005?
I want to work ASAP.
HalfDog
03-09 07:23 PM
lol, if you want, we can start the battle again, just didn't want to sit waiting
No comments:
Post a Comment