f1USvisaholder
06-20 04:55 PM
Hi,
I'm on F1 visa and married to a GC holder. Should i apply for a dependent GC (I-130) on my husband's GC OR be on my F1 status untill the time he becomes citizen and then apply for the dependent GC?...What are the exact wait times for I-130 now?
If i dont apply for I-130 and go out of the country, will there be any issues while coming back to this country. What do you thing is the best way to go..
I'm ready to take some legal advice, so please let me know.
Thanks
I'm on F1 visa and married to a GC holder. Should i apply for a dependent GC (I-130) on my husband's GC OR be on my F1 status untill the time he becomes citizen and then apply for the dependent GC?...What are the exact wait times for I-130 now?
If i dont apply for I-130 and go out of the country, will there be any issues while coming back to this country. What do you thing is the best way to go..
I'm ready to take some legal advice, so please let me know.
Thanks
wallpaper HD Wallpapers: 2560x1440
ultrasparc
10-05 05:22 PM
I am in same boat. My wife figuer printing fees got rejected.. Not sure checked cashed for finger print or not. Will know about it on monday.
chanduv23
11-17 10:12 PM
If you live in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and anywhere else in the Upstate NY region, please post here.
2011 010 brown dog wallpaper
dc2007
07-10 04:49 PM
Anybody has filed H1 or H1-transfer by himself ?
more...
crazy_apple
07-14 05:24 PM
Hello,
I am sure others might have noticed that 485 processing dates at NSC (for example) have literally crawled from the beginning of the year to now. Here are the processing dates (per USCIS status).
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
12/15/2007 Status - 04/24/2007
01/15/2008 - 07/19/2007
06/15/2008 - 07/28/2008
Thats roughly 9/10 days worth of 485 processing from mid-Jan to mid-Jun 2008. I wonder what the processing date looks like for the mid-July status update (which should probably be out tomorrow).
I am sure others might have noticed that 485 processing dates at NSC (for example) have literally crawled from the beginning of the year to now. Here are the processing dates (per USCIS status).
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
12/15/2007 Status - 04/24/2007
01/15/2008 - 07/19/2007
06/15/2008 - 07/28/2008
Thats roughly 9/10 days worth of 485 processing from mid-Jan to mid-Jun 2008. I wonder what the processing date looks like for the mid-July status update (which should probably be out tomorrow).
vpn
03-11 07:53 PM
any advice on this, anyone?
more...
imh1b
05-26 02:28 PM
At Well-Paying Law Firms, a Low-Paid Corner - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/At-WellPaying-Law-Firms-a-nytimes-1899956294.html?x=0&.v=1)
WHEELING, W.Va. � The nation�s biggest law firms are creating a second tier of workers, stripping pay and prestige from one of the most coveted jobs in the business world.
Make no mistake: These are full-fledged lawyers, not paralegals, and they do the same work traditional legal associates do. But they earn less than half the pay of their counterparts � usually around $60,000 � and they know from the outset they will never make partner.
WHEELING, W.Va. � The nation�s biggest law firms are creating a second tier of workers, stripping pay and prestige from one of the most coveted jobs in the business world.
Make no mistake: These are full-fledged lawyers, not paralegals, and they do the same work traditional legal associates do. But they earn less than half the pay of their counterparts � usually around $60,000 � and they know from the outset they will never make partner.
2010 HD Wallpapers amp; High Quality
Macaca
10-29 07:57 AM
Maryland's Senator Fix-It (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801153.html) By Fred Hiatt (fredhiatt@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 29, 2007
Against the prevailing dismay over partisanship and dysfunction in the U.S. Senate, consider the testimony of one happy senator.
Ben Cardin, freshman Democrat of Maryland, says he has been surprised since his election almost a year ago at how possible it is to make progress in the Senate. It is easier to form bipartisan alliances than it was in the House, he says. Senators who strike deals stick to them and will not be pulled away by pressure from party leaders. And, even despite the 60-vote barrier, real legislative accomplishments are within reach.
Cardin is part of an impressive Senate class of nine Democratic rookies (including Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats), others of whom have gotten more attention than he has during their first year. Virginia's Jim Webb, to name one, has proved more compelling to the national party and media, with his military past, literary achievements and quotable economic populism.
Consider, by contrast, the first sentence of the " About Ben" biography on Cardin's official Web site: "Benjamin L. Cardin has been a national leader on health care, retirement security and fiscal issues since coming to Congress in 1987." No wonder the Democrats chose Webb to respond to President Bush's State of the Union address in January.
No one would accuse Cardin of putting charisma over substance. A legislator's legislator, he served in the Maryland House of Delegates for 20 years, as speaker from 1979 to 1986, and then represented a part of Baltimore and surrounding suburbs in the House of Representatives for 20 more. Now he's delightedly burrowing into the Senate.
During a visit to The Post last week, he ticked off a series of what he called medium-level issues on which he believes something can be achieved: providing incentives for good teachers to work in the neediest schools, getting the Army Corps of Engineers involved in Chesapeake Bay cleanup, establishing a commission to chart a path to energy independence within 10 years and reauthorizing (for the first time in decades) the federal program that provides lawyers for those who can't afford them.
Cardin acknowledged that prospects for progress on the biggest issues are dimmer, but even there he's not discouraged. "Social Security is easy to solve," he says, and achieving energy independence within 10 years is quite doable; both just require more leadership from the White House, which he hopes a new (Democratic) president will provide. He's signed on to the Lieberman-Warner bill on climate change and thinks it could get 60 votes, too, with a little prodding from on high.
The failure of comprehensive immigration reform, he grants, was "an embarrassment." Senators were not prepared for the force and single-mindedness of the opposition to what was perceived as amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"It is an explosive issue," Cardin said. "It crippled our office's ability to get anything else done." The letters he received were well written, not part of an organized campaign, from all corners of the state -- and unequivocal. "They said, 'This is not America. America is the rule of law. How can you let people sneak into the country? If you vote for this, I'll never vote for you again' " -- an argument that tends to seize a politician's attention.
Cardin did not and still does not believe that the bill provided amnesty. It insisted that illegal immigrants atone in a number of ways, including anteing up back taxes, learning English and paying a fine. "If you go much further, people aren't going to come forward" and out of the shadows, he says. "I don't think it makes a lot of sense to be sending troops after them."
But even here, he has faith that the Senate eventually can pass immigration reform. It was a mistake to craft the bill in closed meetings, he said; next time, open debate would create less anxiety. Reform advocates have to communicate better what requirements they're imposing in exchange for legalization. But ultimately, "you can't hide from what needs to be done. You have to deal with the 12 million, with border security and with the fairness issue" for immigrants and would-be immigrants who have played by the rules.
Cardin is not naive about the political obstacles to progress. But unusually for Washington, he seems less focused on blaming the other side for gridlock than on avoiding gridlock in the first place.
"Quite frankly, the solution on immigration is easy, even if it won't be easy to accomplish," he says cheerfully. "You just have to get a bipartisan coalition and get it done."
Against the prevailing dismay over partisanship and dysfunction in the U.S. Senate, consider the testimony of one happy senator.
Ben Cardin, freshman Democrat of Maryland, says he has been surprised since his election almost a year ago at how possible it is to make progress in the Senate. It is easier to form bipartisan alliances than it was in the House, he says. Senators who strike deals stick to them and will not be pulled away by pressure from party leaders. And, even despite the 60-vote barrier, real legislative accomplishments are within reach.
Cardin is part of an impressive Senate class of nine Democratic rookies (including Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats), others of whom have gotten more attention than he has during their first year. Virginia's Jim Webb, to name one, has proved more compelling to the national party and media, with his military past, literary achievements and quotable economic populism.
Consider, by contrast, the first sentence of the " About Ben" biography on Cardin's official Web site: "Benjamin L. Cardin has been a national leader on health care, retirement security and fiscal issues since coming to Congress in 1987." No wonder the Democrats chose Webb to respond to President Bush's State of the Union address in January.
No one would accuse Cardin of putting charisma over substance. A legislator's legislator, he served in the Maryland House of Delegates for 20 years, as speaker from 1979 to 1986, and then represented a part of Baltimore and surrounding suburbs in the House of Representatives for 20 more. Now he's delightedly burrowing into the Senate.
During a visit to The Post last week, he ticked off a series of what he called medium-level issues on which he believes something can be achieved: providing incentives for good teachers to work in the neediest schools, getting the Army Corps of Engineers involved in Chesapeake Bay cleanup, establishing a commission to chart a path to energy independence within 10 years and reauthorizing (for the first time in decades) the federal program that provides lawyers for those who can't afford them.
Cardin acknowledged that prospects for progress on the biggest issues are dimmer, but even there he's not discouraged. "Social Security is easy to solve," he says, and achieving energy independence within 10 years is quite doable; both just require more leadership from the White House, which he hopes a new (Democratic) president will provide. He's signed on to the Lieberman-Warner bill on climate change and thinks it could get 60 votes, too, with a little prodding from on high.
The failure of comprehensive immigration reform, he grants, was "an embarrassment." Senators were not prepared for the force and single-mindedness of the opposition to what was perceived as amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"It is an explosive issue," Cardin said. "It crippled our office's ability to get anything else done." The letters he received were well written, not part of an organized campaign, from all corners of the state -- and unequivocal. "They said, 'This is not America. America is the rule of law. How can you let people sneak into the country? If you vote for this, I'll never vote for you again' " -- an argument that tends to seize a politician's attention.
Cardin did not and still does not believe that the bill provided amnesty. It insisted that illegal immigrants atone in a number of ways, including anteing up back taxes, learning English and paying a fine. "If you go much further, people aren't going to come forward" and out of the shadows, he says. "I don't think it makes a lot of sense to be sending troops after them."
But even here, he has faith that the Senate eventually can pass immigration reform. It was a mistake to craft the bill in closed meetings, he said; next time, open debate would create less anxiety. Reform advocates have to communicate better what requirements they're imposing in exchange for legalization. But ultimately, "you can't hide from what needs to be done. You have to deal with the 12 million, with border security and with the fairness issue" for immigrants and would-be immigrants who have played by the rules.
Cardin is not naive about the political obstacles to progress. But unusually for Washington, he seems less focused on blaming the other side for gridlock than on avoiding gridlock in the first place.
"Quite frankly, the solution on immigration is easy, even if it won't be easy to accomplish," he says cheerfully. "You just have to get a bipartisan coalition and get it done."
more...
freedom1
05-22 01:02 PM
This is the scenario:
1. Husband becomes a LPR this year.
2. Wife still undocumented.
3. Wife was working long time ago, but became a housewife for the past 6 years, so no work.
How would the wife adjust her status under the new CIR if she was not working for the past 6 years?
Would she have to wait until the husband is able to petition her through other regular means?
Any ideas or is it too early to tell how USCIS will issue it's regulations about CIR?
Freedom1 :confused:
1. Husband becomes a LPR this year.
2. Wife still undocumented.
3. Wife was working long time ago, but became a housewife for the past 6 years, so no work.
How would the wife adjust her status under the new CIR if she was not working for the past 6 years?
Would she have to wait until the husband is able to petition her through other regular means?
Any ideas or is it too early to tell how USCIS will issue it's regulations about CIR?
Freedom1 :confused:
hair HD Wallpapers: 2560x1440
johnshoemaker
03-16 10:46 PM
If I were going to spend over a year in a country which required a visa to visit (such as Nigeria), in order to study the local culture, which kind of visa would I need to obtain before hand? Business, work, study, visitor, etc?
Thanks!
Thanks!
more...
paulinasmith
04-25 10:16 PM
Hi,
What is the best way to save one from going out of status on E-3 visa?Can a E-3 Visa holder or E-3D visa holder may apply and successfully get EB-3 or EB-2 green card?Can E-3 visa holder may work for two employers (already USCIS approved extension petition from both) simultaneously (without filling any new I-129 or extension request)?
The place of birth for E-3 Visa holder is Pakistan.
Please suggest and advise?
Thanks,
Paulina
What is the best way to save one from going out of status on E-3 visa?Can a E-3 Visa holder or E-3D visa holder may apply and successfully get EB-3 or EB-2 green card?Can E-3 visa holder may work for two employers (already USCIS approved extension petition from both) simultaneously (without filling any new I-129 or extension request)?
The place of birth for E-3 Visa holder is Pakistan.
Please suggest and advise?
Thanks,
Paulina
hot 2010 Dogs Wallpapers Pack dogs
Macaca
10-30 08:54 PM
Honey, They Shrunk the Congress (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/opinion/30tues4.html) By ADAM COHEN | New York Times, October 30, 2007
President Bush�s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, was asked an important question about Congress�s power at his confirmation hearing. If witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal � as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have done � and Congress holds them in contempt, would his Justice Department refer the matter to a grand jury for criminal prosecution, as federal law requires?
Mr. Mukasey suggested the answer would be no. That was hardly his only slap-down of Congress. He made the startling claim that a president can defy laws if he or she is acting within the authority �to defend the country.� That is a mighty large exception to the rule that Congress�s laws are supreme.
The founders wanted the �people�s branch� to be strong, but the Bush administration has usurped a frightening number of Congress�s powers � with very little resistance. The question is whether members of Congress of both parties will do anything about it.
Congress is often described as one of three coequal branches, but that is not entirely true. As Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, observed in �America�s Constitution: a Biography,� Article I actually makes Congress �first among equals, with wide power to structure the second-mentioned executive and third-mentioned judicial branches.�
Article I, which describes Congress�s powers, is the Constitution�s first, longest and most generously worded article. It gives Congress a wide array of specific powers, but also broad authority to pass laws that bring to life �all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.�
It would be hard to recognize that powerful Congress today. In part, that is because Congress has been unwilling or unable to enact laws on the most important issues facing the nation � Iraq, immigration reform, health care.
Just as troubling, though, is how it has allowed its institutional power to erode. President Bush has regularly issued signing statements � including on critical issues like the ban on torture � that assert his right to ignore new laws at the same time as he signs them. These signing statements are not just talk. A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office states that in nearly one-third of the cases it looked at, after President Bush issued a signing statement objecting to a provision of a new law, his administration did not implement it as written.
The Senate has routinely confirmed judicial nominees who make no secret of their belief that the president�s power should be sweeping, and Congress�s sharply cut back.
The Senate confirmed Jeffrey Sutton to a federal appeals court judgeship even though Patrick Leahy, now the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, observed that as a lawyer Mr. Sutton �aggressively sought out cases to limit the power of Congress to enact laws protecting individual rights.� It confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to the powerful United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit even though she had suggested that much of the legislation passed during the New Deal � including the Social Security Act � was unconstitutional.
There are things Congress can do. It can start by speaking out about the importance of Congressional power the way the administration has talked about deferring to the commander in chief. Congress should pass laws that support its own power � like a bipartisan one that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has introduced to nullify the impact of signing statements.
The Senate should refuse to confirm nominees who do not take Congressional power seriously. And Congress should make clear that if the executive branch will not enforce its subpoenas, it will use its own �inherent contempt� powers to do so.
Right now, standing up for Congress may appeal more to Democrats than Republicans. The issue of reining in presidential power is beginning to gain traction among conservatives, however, as they contemplate the possibility of a Democrat � particularly Hillary Clinton � as president.
Defending Congressional authority should not be a partisan issue. The founders wanted a strong Congress because they understood the importance of ensuring that the most democratic branch have a strong say in how the nation is run.
President Bush�s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, was asked an important question about Congress�s power at his confirmation hearing. If witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal � as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have done � and Congress holds them in contempt, would his Justice Department refer the matter to a grand jury for criminal prosecution, as federal law requires?
Mr. Mukasey suggested the answer would be no. That was hardly his only slap-down of Congress. He made the startling claim that a president can defy laws if he or she is acting within the authority �to defend the country.� That is a mighty large exception to the rule that Congress�s laws are supreme.
The founders wanted the �people�s branch� to be strong, but the Bush administration has usurped a frightening number of Congress�s powers � with very little resistance. The question is whether members of Congress of both parties will do anything about it.
Congress is often described as one of three coequal branches, but that is not entirely true. As Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor, observed in �America�s Constitution: a Biography,� Article I actually makes Congress �first among equals, with wide power to structure the second-mentioned executive and third-mentioned judicial branches.�
Article I, which describes Congress�s powers, is the Constitution�s first, longest and most generously worded article. It gives Congress a wide array of specific powers, but also broad authority to pass laws that bring to life �all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.�
It would be hard to recognize that powerful Congress today. In part, that is because Congress has been unwilling or unable to enact laws on the most important issues facing the nation � Iraq, immigration reform, health care.
Just as troubling, though, is how it has allowed its institutional power to erode. President Bush has regularly issued signing statements � including on critical issues like the ban on torture � that assert his right to ignore new laws at the same time as he signs them. These signing statements are not just talk. A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office states that in nearly one-third of the cases it looked at, after President Bush issued a signing statement objecting to a provision of a new law, his administration did not implement it as written.
The Senate has routinely confirmed judicial nominees who make no secret of their belief that the president�s power should be sweeping, and Congress�s sharply cut back.
The Senate confirmed Jeffrey Sutton to a federal appeals court judgeship even though Patrick Leahy, now the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, observed that as a lawyer Mr. Sutton �aggressively sought out cases to limit the power of Congress to enact laws protecting individual rights.� It confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to the powerful United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit even though she had suggested that much of the legislation passed during the New Deal � including the Social Security Act � was unconstitutional.
There are things Congress can do. It can start by speaking out about the importance of Congressional power the way the administration has talked about deferring to the commander in chief. Congress should pass laws that support its own power � like a bipartisan one that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has introduced to nullify the impact of signing statements.
The Senate should refuse to confirm nominees who do not take Congressional power seriously. And Congress should make clear that if the executive branch will not enforce its subpoenas, it will use its own �inherent contempt� powers to do so.
Right now, standing up for Congress may appeal more to Democrats than Republicans. The issue of reining in presidential power is beginning to gain traction among conservatives, however, as they contemplate the possibility of a Democrat � particularly Hillary Clinton � as president.
Defending Congressional authority should not be a partisan issue. The founders wanted a strong Congress because they understood the importance of ensuring that the most democratic branch have a strong say in how the nation is run.
more...
house and kittens wallpaper
polapragada
09-24 12:40 AM
HI
Should I do AOS or CP?
Which one would get me the green card faster?
Thanks
CP would be quick
Should I do AOS or CP?
Which one would get me the green card faster?
Thanks
CP would be quick
tattoo dog wallpaper, free dog
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
more...
pictures perros. wallpaper hd dogs
srikondoji
05-23 07:57 AM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsmEHycltlq6vUGnxJrypr7sy6IX?qid=200705 23053847AAIKPOX
dresses Black Dog wallpapers - Black
lotta
07-18 11:43 PM
My mother is a GC holder since 91. I came to US in 2002 on F1 and then H1 and now GC.
Will the fact that my mom was a GC holder and I did not use that impact my GC? I have answered all the questions correctly(true i mean) always.
Please answer.
Thanks,
Jo.
Nope, it should not.
Will the fact that my mom was a GC holder and I did not use that impact my GC? I have answered all the questions correctly(true i mean) always.
Please answer.
Thanks,
Jo.
Nope, it should not.
more...
makeup Dogs Wallpapers part 4
gccovet
11-05 11:15 AM
Hi guys ,
can any one let me know what is the NAICS code for health care service provider company where we do transcription coding ,radiology service please
thanks
check this out
SIC Code Directory (http://listsareus.com/business-sic-codes-m.htm)
can any one let me know what is the NAICS code for health care service provider company where we do transcription coding ,radiology service please
thanks
check this out
SIC Code Directory (http://listsareus.com/business-sic-codes-m.htm)
girlfriend hd wallpaper widescreen
i4u
04-28 11:39 AM
with I -140 you don't need your family here......
hairstyles hd wallpaper cute. Dog Hd
centaur
08-13 06:40 PM
I have an old priority date with previous employer (jan 2006), however my I140 with the new employer has date of May 2007. I can also apply for 485 under NIW. My question is if I apply for 485 by both pathways(two different applications), can I recapture the same PD of the old employer TWICE?
gurus please advise.
gurus please advise.
gc_kaavaali
08-26 04:08 PM
People suggest to work for 6 months...Remember there is no rule to work for 6 months. But just incase if somebody ask at the time of applying for citizenship, you can show that you worked for 6 months.
anyone???
anyone???
Blog Feeds
10-15 12:00 PM
On 10/01/09, President Obama signed a continuing resolution to fund continued federal government operations through October 31, 2009. Included in the legislation were provisions to extend the E-Verify, Religious Worker, Conrad 30 and EB-5 programs.
The continuing resolution was attached to the FY10 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill (H.R. 2918), and was passed by the House of Representatives on 9/25/09 and the Senate on 9/30/09.
The E-Verify, Religious Worker, Conrad 30 and EB-5 programs have all been extended for an additional 30 days, though all they may be extended further in the coming weeks once the Senate and House conference the FY10 Homeland Security Appropriations bill (H.R. 2892).
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/latest-immigration-actions-by-pres-obama.aspx?ref=rss)
The continuing resolution was attached to the FY10 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill (H.R. 2918), and was passed by the House of Representatives on 9/25/09 and the Senate on 9/30/09.
The E-Verify, Religious Worker, Conrad 30 and EB-5 programs have all been extended for an additional 30 days, though all they may be extended further in the coming weeks once the Senate and House conference the FY10 Homeland Security Appropriations bill (H.R. 2892).
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/latest-immigration-actions-by-pres-obama.aspx?ref=rss)
No comments:
Post a Comment