monktrusts
01-01 01:31 PM
Hi :D
I rarely post.
Want to wish you a happy, healthy, fun filled, relaxed and sun shine new year.
Make a new year resolution that has positive impact on your life style. :D
I personally will try to loose 10 pounds, Switch from Beer/Scotch to Wine (can't gaurantee leaving scotch :p and will do some certifications and keep bright faces of my kids and my wife always in front of me and in my mind if I do get discouraged.
Good luck for this year friends. :D
Thx :D:):D
I rarely post.
Want to wish you a happy, healthy, fun filled, relaxed and sun shine new year.
Make a new year resolution that has positive impact on your life style. :D
I personally will try to loose 10 pounds, Switch from Beer/Scotch to Wine (can't gaurantee leaving scotch :p and will do some certifications and keep bright faces of my kids and my wife always in front of me and in my mind if I do get discouraged.
Good luck for this year friends. :D
Thx :D:):D
wallpaper dresses Half Up Half Down Prom
Vibes30
06-12 08:56 AM
.........This is not a warez board.......
.........Do not ask for or request software of any kind that may be construed as pirating.......
.........You have been warned.........
.........It is only a matter of time before upuat8 is all over this post........
.........Thank you for your immediate attention.......
.........Do not ask for or request software of any kind that may be construed as pirating.......
.........You have been warned.........
.........It is only a matter of time before upuat8 is all over this post........
.........Thank you for your immediate attention.......
sparky_jones
01-08 02:55 PM
I received a status update email from USCIS yesterday on my wife's pending I-485 application. The status says "On November 5, 2007, the post office returned the notice we last sent you on this case I485 as undeliverable�.
The status used to say "application is pending" as recently as a week ago. If some notice had indeed been returned to them, wouldn't the status have changed around Nov 5, 2007? Could this be an erroneous online status change? We completed our FP back in Oct 2007. we have received EAD, AP, etc. on our address properly, and haven't moved.
The status used to say "application is pending" as recently as a week ago. If some notice had indeed been returned to them, wouldn't the status have changed around Nov 5, 2007? Could this be an erroneous online status change? We completed our FP back in Oct 2007. we have received EAD, AP, etc. on our address properly, and haven't moved.
2011 prom hairstyles half up and
H42H1BHelp
08-16 11:28 PM
Pls help
more...
cagil
08-04 08:15 AM
I am really confused and I really need information about my situation.
I have graduated from Culinary Institute of America on June 18 and I had an application for OPT for July15. In normal process, I have received my OPT card and begin to work at the restaurant on July 15. However, because of an important family situation I have to go back to my country for one week between September 15- 22.
Now,my situation is; -I have an OPT card
-I have a job
-I am in my OPT year
BUT: on my OPT card, it says that, I can not leave the country during my OPT year
HOWEVER: I have to go back to my country for one week and there is no problem about taking off from my job.
I can not be sure about leaving the country,my question is: During the OPT period, IF you have a job and all your documents are done about OPT period, are you still should not leave the country? If you leave the USA, how can you come back?
I have graduated from Culinary Institute of America on June 18 and I had an application for OPT for July15. In normal process, I have received my OPT card and begin to work at the restaurant on July 15. However, because of an important family situation I have to go back to my country for one week between September 15- 22.
Now,my situation is; -I have an OPT card
-I have a job
-I am in my OPT year
BUT: on my OPT card, it says that, I can not leave the country during my OPT year
HOWEVER: I have to go back to my country for one week and there is no problem about taking off from my job.
I can not be sure about leaving the country,my question is: During the OPT period, IF you have a job and all your documents are done about OPT period, are you still should not leave the country? If you leave the USA, how can you come back?
arch_118
06-23 07:41 PM
Is it possible to obtain a Greencard from L1B status? If yes, how long does this process typically take? My understanding is it is possible and definitely easier/shorter than being on H1?
more...
dns2828
09-21 11:06 AM
I took the citizenship test, biometic now the second time .passed it 2 1/2 years ago . I was told the immigration did not have my filed . So Wait. Went to immirgation office 3 times. no result . Case under review ????? what is that mean????? Am confused ... No one can tell me what was going on . I have done no wrong. pay my taxes....
I even write to my congress woman , no reply .. so sad
Where should I go .... . please advise . thanks
I even write to my congress woman , no reply .. so sad
Where should I go .... . please advise . thanks
2010 Half up half down hairstyle
axljovi
02-22 10:00 PM
Hi,
My wife came to US on a L2 dependant visa in June 2007. She applied for EAD and got the same in Oct 2007. She was applying for jobs and both of us had to travel to India for couple of weeks in Dec 2007 due to personal reasons. After coming back, she got a job and is working now using the EAD that she got before the travel to India. Is it legal to work with the EAD she got earlier? I have this doubt because the I-94 with which she got her EAD is not the same as what she/I currently hold.
My wife came to US on a L2 dependant visa in June 2007. She applied for EAD and got the same in Oct 2007. She was applying for jobs and both of us had to travel to India for couple of weeks in Dec 2007 due to personal reasons. After coming back, she got a job and is working now using the EAD that she got before the travel to India. Is it legal to work with the EAD she got earlier? I have this doubt because the I-94 with which she got her EAD is not the same as what she/I currently hold.
more...
Macaca
12-02 09:18 AM
Business Lobby Presses Agenda Before �08 Vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/washington/02lobby.html?hp) By ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, December 2, 2007
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
hair half up half down hairstyles. Wedding Hairstyles Half Up.
kalinga_sena
08-20 07:34 PM
If your parents never overstayed beyond their I-94 date then I do not think there is any issue at all. POE off. can ask why you are coming again in 3 months then they can tell that they want to be here in new year time etc.
more...
Gym Band
01-24 12:36 AM
I am currently in L1B status and filed for AOS (I-140/I-485) in July 2007. My I-140 was approved last week and 180 days of pending I-485 are also over. My question is whether there is a huge risk involved in porting to a new employer using EAD, particularly because I do not have any other safety net like H1-B status. I understand, in case of I-485 denial, I will not have any other option to fall back upon. But if USCIS mistakenly issues a NOID or denial for some strange reason, would I have any other option to appeal without going out of country. Can I continue appealing such a potential denial from outside of USA and come if they reopen the case.
More specifically, I have heard some of the AC21 cases have been mistakenly denied or a NOID issues due to ignorant USCIS immigration officer. Can something be done to revive the AOS when there is no backup option like H1B? Would that action needs to be continued from outside of USA or can be done here itself.
More specifically, I have heard some of the AC21 cases have been mistakenly denied or a NOID issues due to ignorant USCIS immigration officer. Can something be done to revive the AOS when there is no backup option like H1B? Would that action needs to be continued from outside of USA or can be done here itself.
hot Hairstyle: Half up half down
ho_gaya_kaya_?
11-21 07:14 AM
I wonder how will the June\July bulletin change the job market - for technocrats...
Starting from Dec 1st many people will be eligible to switch jobs...people who were unable to do so till now.
And in Jan- many more will get into the "green" zone...
So here is the poll question:
Are you planning to change jobs ?:)
A: As soon as possible- Cant wait !!!
B:Yes- but not immediately - as soon as I find something good
C:Not Really- I am content where I am.
Starting from Dec 1st many people will be eligible to switch jobs...people who were unable to do so till now.
And in Jan- many more will get into the "green" zone...
So here is the poll question:
Are you planning to change jobs ?:)
A: As soon as possible- Cant wait !!!
B:Yes- but not immediately - as soon as I find something good
C:Not Really- I am content where I am.
more...
house half-down hairstyle with
ishakapoor
02-25 10:55 AM
fdxh
tattoo curly half up half down prom
ashkam
07-18 11:13 AM
yes, probably not, yes.
more...
pictures Half Up, Half Down Hairstyles:
Macaca
09-06 05:30 PM
Congress Deserves Better Ratings, But Not by Much (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_22/kondracke/19839-1.html) By Morton M. Kondracke | Roll Call, September 6, 2007
Congress returned to town this week with its poll ratings even lower than President Bush's. That's because nearly all the public ever sees is Members fighting and accomplishing nothing.
But it's not a completely accurate picture. By the time Congress adjourned for the August recess, it actually had racked up some legislative accomplishments that voters didn't appreciate.
So perhaps a fair grade for the 110th Congress so far would be an F for style, a C-plus for effort and an Incomplete for quality of achievement. There is plenty of room for checking the box "shows improvement."
What Congress has accomplished this year came in two bursts - the first "100 hours," when the House pushed through much of its promised "Six in '06" agenda, and the final 100 hours or so last month, when both the House and Senate processed a bevy of legislation.
In between, what occurred was five months of nearly nonstop ugliness - failed Democratic efforts to stop the Iraq War, a fractious and futile fight over immigration reform, vengeful exercises of legislative oversight designed to discredit the Bush administration, and shouting matches between majority Democrats and minority Republicans.
Even the pre-adjournment legislative push was clouded over by a raucous, late-night dust-up over a thwarted House GOP move to deny benefits to illegal immigrants that made for great television, doubtless reinforcing the public's impression of a Congress in total disarray.
It's not a complete misimpression. Partisan wrangling is the dominant activity of this Congress. It makes a mockery of the fervent proclamations by leaders of both parties in January that they understood voters' dismay with endless, pointless point-scoring and the desire that Congress solve their urgent problems.
Congress' failure to make problem-solving its dominant activity accounts for its low public esteem. Polls on public approval of Congress average 22 percent, compared with 33 percent for Bush. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 14 percent have confidence that Congress will do the right thing.
But Congress has done some things right this year and notice should be taken of them.
A statistical rundown by Brookings Institution scholars published in The New York Times on Aug. 26 showed that the current House is running well ahead of recent Congresses in terms of days in session, bills passed and hearings held. The Senate has a mixed record.
One signal, unappreciated accomplishment was overwhelming passage of a $43 billion program designed to bolster America's competitiveness by doubling its scientific research budget and training more scientists and linguists.
Sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Reps. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), the final bill passed the House 367-57 and by voice vote without dissent in the Senate.
Other bills passed and sent to the president this year include an increase in the minimum wage, lobbying and ethics reform and homeland security enhancements fulfilling the recommendations of the presidential 9/11 commission.
Also on the list, but the subject of ongoing partisan division, was last-minute legislation authorizing the government to conduct no-warrant intercepts of electronic communication between two overseas parties when the messages pass through a server in the United States.
Civil liberties groups, many Democrats and some editorial writers contend that the measure authorized "domestic spying on U.S. citizens," but the objections seem to reflect distrust of the Bush administration more than any leeway in the law to tap persons in the United States.
Congress will revisit the issue and to the extent that controversy continues, it will reinforce public dismay that its leaders would rather fight than protect them from terrorism.
Meanwhile, some of the claimed accomplishments of the Democratic Congress are less than stellar. Energy bills passed by both chambers fall far short of setting the nation on a path to independence. Neither contains a gasoline tax, encouragement for nuclear power or provisions to expand America's electricity grid.
Farm legislation that passed the House limits subsidies to the richest American farmers but basically leaves intact a subsidy system for corporate farmers that artificially inflates land values, inhibits rural development, hurts farmers in poor countries and puts the U.S. in danger of world trade sanctions.
Bush has signaled his intention to veto both the House farm bill and the Senate energy bill - and also both the House and Senate measures expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate SCHIP bill has funding flaws but basically is a responsible, bipartisan bill that deserves to survive a veto.
With Congress back, the prospect is for more combat with Bush, largely over spending and Iraq. The country will be lucky to avoid government shutdowns as the two sides trade charges that the other is fiscally irresponsible.
And a flurry of progress reports on Iraq is only stimulating new rancor, despite widespread underlying agreement that troop withdrawals need to be gradual and responsible.
Congress and the Bush administration ought to resolve to improve their public esteem not at each other's expense, but by seeking agreement in the public interest. Admittedly, the chances are slim.
Congress returned to town this week with its poll ratings even lower than President Bush's. That's because nearly all the public ever sees is Members fighting and accomplishing nothing.
But it's not a completely accurate picture. By the time Congress adjourned for the August recess, it actually had racked up some legislative accomplishments that voters didn't appreciate.
So perhaps a fair grade for the 110th Congress so far would be an F for style, a C-plus for effort and an Incomplete for quality of achievement. There is plenty of room for checking the box "shows improvement."
What Congress has accomplished this year came in two bursts - the first "100 hours," when the House pushed through much of its promised "Six in '06" agenda, and the final 100 hours or so last month, when both the House and Senate processed a bevy of legislation.
In between, what occurred was five months of nearly nonstop ugliness - failed Democratic efforts to stop the Iraq War, a fractious and futile fight over immigration reform, vengeful exercises of legislative oversight designed to discredit the Bush administration, and shouting matches between majority Democrats and minority Republicans.
Even the pre-adjournment legislative push was clouded over by a raucous, late-night dust-up over a thwarted House GOP move to deny benefits to illegal immigrants that made for great television, doubtless reinforcing the public's impression of a Congress in total disarray.
It's not a complete misimpression. Partisan wrangling is the dominant activity of this Congress. It makes a mockery of the fervent proclamations by leaders of both parties in January that they understood voters' dismay with endless, pointless point-scoring and the desire that Congress solve their urgent problems.
Congress' failure to make problem-solving its dominant activity accounts for its low public esteem. Polls on public approval of Congress average 22 percent, compared with 33 percent for Bush. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 14 percent have confidence that Congress will do the right thing.
But Congress has done some things right this year and notice should be taken of them.
A statistical rundown by Brookings Institution scholars published in The New York Times on Aug. 26 showed that the current House is running well ahead of recent Congresses in terms of days in session, bills passed and hearings held. The Senate has a mixed record.
One signal, unappreciated accomplishment was overwhelming passage of a $43 billion program designed to bolster America's competitiveness by doubling its scientific research budget and training more scientists and linguists.
Sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Reps. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), the final bill passed the House 367-57 and by voice vote without dissent in the Senate.
Other bills passed and sent to the president this year include an increase in the minimum wage, lobbying and ethics reform and homeland security enhancements fulfilling the recommendations of the presidential 9/11 commission.
Also on the list, but the subject of ongoing partisan division, was last-minute legislation authorizing the government to conduct no-warrant intercepts of electronic communication between two overseas parties when the messages pass through a server in the United States.
Civil liberties groups, many Democrats and some editorial writers contend that the measure authorized "domestic spying on U.S. citizens," but the objections seem to reflect distrust of the Bush administration more than any leeway in the law to tap persons in the United States.
Congress will revisit the issue and to the extent that controversy continues, it will reinforce public dismay that its leaders would rather fight than protect them from terrorism.
Meanwhile, some of the claimed accomplishments of the Democratic Congress are less than stellar. Energy bills passed by both chambers fall far short of setting the nation on a path to independence. Neither contains a gasoline tax, encouragement for nuclear power or provisions to expand America's electricity grid.
Farm legislation that passed the House limits subsidies to the richest American farmers but basically leaves intact a subsidy system for corporate farmers that artificially inflates land values, inhibits rural development, hurts farmers in poor countries and puts the U.S. in danger of world trade sanctions.
Bush has signaled his intention to veto both the House farm bill and the Senate energy bill - and also both the House and Senate measures expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate SCHIP bill has funding flaws but basically is a responsible, bipartisan bill that deserves to survive a veto.
With Congress back, the prospect is for more combat with Bush, largely over spending and Iraq. The country will be lucky to avoid government shutdowns as the two sides trade charges that the other is fiscally irresponsible.
And a flurry of progress reports on Iraq is only stimulating new rancor, despite widespread underlying agreement that troop withdrawals need to be gradual and responsible.
Congress and the Bush administration ought to resolve to improve their public esteem not at each other's expense, but by seeking agreement in the public interest. Admittedly, the chances are slim.
dresses cute half up half down
iv_only_hope
01-16 11:10 AM
Why are you applying for an H1 when you already have a EAD?
more...
makeup up/half down hair styles
rajeshalex
08-15 06:26 AM
Hi All,
I have I-140 with PD of 2004 from previous company. From the current company I had started new GC process.
a) Previous labor title is software engineer. New labor title is Computer support specialist.
b) New perm process just started and job order has been posted last month.
In the job order company didnt give much details and only one sentence which is related to the old labor job description though it has 8 lines describing the job description
c)Should the above be a problem for porting the PD? Also current company has not done the sunday ads. Can they include all 8 lines describing the job description in the sunday ads?
d)I am in Viriginia and which sunday news papers do you recommend(EB2)
category.
e) Is there any PERM filing fee ?
Thank you
Rajesh
:confused:
I have I-140 with PD of 2004 from previous company. From the current company I had started new GC process.
a) Previous labor title is software engineer. New labor title is Computer support specialist.
b) New perm process just started and job order has been posted last month.
In the job order company didnt give much details and only one sentence which is related to the old labor job description though it has 8 lines describing the job description
c)Should the above be a problem for porting the PD? Also current company has not done the sunday ads. Can they include all 8 lines describing the job description in the sunday ads?
d)I am in Viriginia and which sunday news papers do you recommend(EB2)
category.
e) Is there any PERM filing fee ?
Thank you
Rajesh
:confused:
girlfriend Half Up Half Down Updos | The
kevinkris
07-14 03:32 PM
Hi,
My PD is Aug 2005 EB2 India, and my 140 is approved.
I know my dates are current and i want to know how to
- Take infopass appointment?
- Does it has any affect on my 485?
- What are the things we can ask in Infopass appointment.
Did you sent the HIGH FIVE to IV?
If not do so right now..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20183
Thanks,
Kevinkris
My PD is Aug 2005 EB2 India, and my 140 is approved.
I know my dates are current and i want to know how to
- Take infopass appointment?
- Does it has any affect on my 485?
- What are the things we can ask in Infopass appointment.
Did you sent the HIGH FIVE to IV?
If not do so right now..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20183
Thanks,
Kevinkris
hairstyles half up half down prom
GCAmigo
12-28 04:11 AM
12th day.. I don't think the Indian Cricket team had serious ball tamepring allegations..
nihar
03-31 06:05 PM
This is with regard to GC and h1
I have applied for family based GC above 21 yrs old on December 2006 and also currently holding h1 valid from October 2008. I also have my opt till May. Now since my employer was not able to find me a project he wants me to chg my status. I do not know what to do and how to chg my visa as, if I go on student visa I need to show financial documents and since I have not made any money how is it possible . If you can also suggest some schools who will not charge much or some courses which are not very expensive and time consuming and also where I can get work authorization as I will find jobs which are not technical and in line with my educational and work qualification . I have a deadline this evening as my employer just called me and told me this
:confused::(
I have applied for family based GC above 21 yrs old on December 2006 and also currently holding h1 valid from October 2008. I also have my opt till May. Now since my employer was not able to find me a project he wants me to chg my status. I do not know what to do and how to chg my visa as, if I go on student visa I need to show financial documents and since I have not made any money how is it possible . If you can also suggest some schools who will not charge much or some courses which are not very expensive and time consuming and also where I can get work authorization as I will find jobs which are not technical and in line with my educational and work qualification . I have a deadline this evening as my employer just called me and told me this
:confused::(
nmed
10-19 07:36 AM
My six-year H1B expires Feb 2 2010.
My employer (company A) filed PERM with DOL on July 30 2009.
I have spent a total of 2 months outside the U.S while on H1B status.
I have been on bench since July without paystub.
I am leaving the U.S on October 30 2009 and am interested in returning back
through another company
Can I return to the U.S through another employer (company B) on a new H1B visa after Feb 2 2010... How long would that visa be valid for.
If I cannot get a new visa; can I add the total of 5 months spent outside
the US on the current h1b visa for recapture through another employer (company B) after Feb 2 2010 -- return to the U.S; and then
subsequently apply for a 1-year extension after July 31 2010
based on company A's PERM filing.
thanks
nmed
My employer (company A) filed PERM with DOL on July 30 2009.
I have spent a total of 2 months outside the U.S while on H1B status.
I have been on bench since July without paystub.
I am leaving the U.S on October 30 2009 and am interested in returning back
through another company
Can I return to the U.S through another employer (company B) on a new H1B visa after Feb 2 2010... How long would that visa be valid for.
If I cannot get a new visa; can I add the total of 5 months spent outside
the US on the current h1b visa for recapture through another employer (company B) after Feb 2 2010 -- return to the U.S; and then
subsequently apply for a 1-year extension after July 31 2010
based on company A's PERM filing.
thanks
nmed
No comments:
Post a Comment