Blog Feeds
12-03 08:50 AM
More evidence things are not going well for Lou.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/cnbc-says-not-to-dobbs.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/cnbc-says-not-to-dobbs.html)
wallpaper Your love and support,
nisargpatel_ce
04-14 03:42 AM
Dear all,
I have got the H1B Visa in Nov. 2008.
and because of current market situation I have not found any job.
I want to process Greencard, so how much time it takes and how would I go further?
Please help me
I have got the H1B Visa in Nov. 2008.
and because of current market situation I have not found any job.
I want to process Greencard, so how much time it takes and how would I go further?
Please help me
jkamel5
06-06 02:28 PM
Hi,
I just got H1B. My wife is currently on her F-1/OPT. Can anyone guide me where I can find required documents to apply for H4 for my wife? Do you think I can do it myself or it needs a lawyer?
Thank you,
John
I just got H1B. My wife is currently on her F-1/OPT. Can anyone guide me where I can find required documents to apply for H4 for my wife? Do you think I can do it myself or it needs a lawyer?
Thank you,
John
2011 I am in love and this time
coolmanasip
07-19 01:54 PM
Guys,
I submitted 485 application for me (primary) and my wife (secondary); now she is changing her job before we can get the receipt for 485 filing....she is on h1B....the new employer will file her H1B transfer..........does anyone see any issue with this????
I think its fine as her H1 status is independent of we filing 485....any thoughts?
I submitted 485 application for me (primary) and my wife (secondary); now she is changing her job before we can get the receipt for 485 filing....she is on h1B....the new employer will file her H1B transfer..........does anyone see any issue with this????
I think its fine as her H1 status is independent of we filing 485....any thoughts?
more...
madras1
01-31 07:07 PM
Guys,
I am generally a lurker in this website. Based on the other threads, I came to the reality there is no way I am getting my GC for another 4-5 years or may be even longer.
However, the USCIS site has a status "Card/Document production". The last status update date was 6/25/2010. The only update I could think of is my new address around the same time. I went to the USCIS status website after 2 years out of curious, after I got back from giving my finger prints (3rd since I485 filing) today.
Is the USCIS jerking me off? :rolleyes:
I am generally a lurker in this website. Based on the other threads, I came to the reality there is no way I am getting my GC for another 4-5 years or may be even longer.
However, the USCIS site has a status "Card/Document production". The last status update date was 6/25/2010. The only update I could think of is my new address around the same time. I went to the USCIS status website after 2 years out of curious, after I got back from giving my finger prints (3rd since I485 filing) today.
Is the USCIS jerking me off? :rolleyes:
Arsen2
03-30 06:15 PM
Hello!
App needs to be run even if there are no permissions for installing or writing on hard disc. So, is it possible to use ActiveX controls and dynamic libraries without installing an application and without temporary run-time extractions, by simply running EXE file?
Thank you!
App needs to be run even if there are no permissions for installing or writing on hard disc. So, is it possible to use ActiveX controls and dynamic libraries without installing an application and without temporary run-time extractions, by simply running EXE file?
Thank you!
more...
nitinms
06-22 03:30 PM
Can people post experiences on turnaround time for getting medical test documents back from the doctor? I have heard 2-3 days after initial appointment, but the doctor's offices I have called say 7-10 business days. Also, I have heard that some doctor's are faster than others. Is this true?
I am interested in particular regarding
# Dr. Donna Diziki, U.S. Healthworks
16 Ethel Road, Edison, NJ 08817
(732) 248-0088
# Dr. Gita Dalal, U.S. Healthworks
16 Ethel Road, Edison, NJ 08817
(732) 248-0088
I am interested in particular regarding
# Dr. Donna Diziki, U.S. Healthworks
16 Ethel Road, Edison, NJ 08817
(732) 248-0088
# Dr. Gita Dalal, U.S. Healthworks
16 Ethel Road, Edison, NJ 08817
(732) 248-0088
2010 item you love AND you must
chriskalani
10-30 12:47 AM
www.ChrisKalani.com (http://www.chriskalani.com/)
For a stronger America... or something.
For a stronger America... or something.
more...
joydiptac
05-16 04:28 PM
Family based green cards take a longish amount of time 5 yrs or so and your wife cannot enter US in that period. So if you plan to live with your wife in the US in the mean time here is an idea you can consider:
Give up your green card, then come back with H1 and your wife on H4 then reapply - you might get your green cards in 3-4 months because your 140 has an older priority date.
Just an idea... no legal basis. All the best!
Give up your green card, then come back with H1 and your wife on H4 then reapply - you might get your green cards in 3-4 months because your 140 has an older priority date.
Just an idea... no legal basis. All the best!
hair (And happy.) I love my reading
chinta_ramesh
09-29 03:20 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092914
:mad:
:mad:
more...
Blog Feeds
10-23 09:20 AM
History teaches us a tried-and-true, gumshoe-inquisitor's method of uncovering scandal. As memorialized in the 1976 film, All the President's Men, former FBI agent, Mark Felt, unmasked as Deep Throat of Watergate fame, explained the approach to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward: Deep Throat: Follow the money. Bob Woodward: What do you mean? Where? Deep Throat: Oh, I can't tell you that. Bob Woodward: But you could tell me that. Deep Throat: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, and I'll confirm. I'll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that's...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/09/follow-the-immigration-money.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/09/follow-the-immigration-money.html)
hot I an wondering if they still
sj2273
02-20 04:17 PM
This is my first post. Thank you for allowing me to participate.
Just a passing thought - Would it help if members in each state meet (say on a Sunday) and come up with Strategies to mobilize more people in their respective states?
It will help the us organize better in each state. A senior member in each state would then coordinate and take strategy and activity related instructions and advice from immigrationvoice.org core members and implement those in his/her respective state.
If at all that is possible then immigrationvoice.org can maybe create statewise blogs or something that would update members in each states about upcoming activities.
Just a passing thought - Would it help if members in each state meet (say on a Sunday) and come up with Strategies to mobilize more people in their respective states?
It will help the us organize better in each state. A senior member in each state would then coordinate and take strategy and activity related instructions and advice from immigrationvoice.org core members and implement those in his/her respective state.
If at all that is possible then immigrationvoice.org can maybe create statewise blogs or something that would update members in each states about upcoming activities.
more...
house If you#39;re an American, and you
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
tattoo lt;3 I An to ----gt;La.
jim
08-09 12:40 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My I140 has recently approved on Aug,7th but the attorney and employer has already sent the withdraw letter to USCIS to cancel I-140 petition last month in July.But as they sent the cancellation letter to USCIS so is this possible if they sent the letter again to them not to withdraw or cancel I-140As right now I am in Canada,so I request them not to cancel I-140 and plz. do the consular processing for my case as I-140 is approved,so can someone advice me what will be the best thing,any advice will be appreciated.
My I140 has recently approved on Aug,7th but the attorney and employer has already sent the withdraw letter to USCIS to cancel I-140 petition last month in July.But as they sent the cancellation letter to USCIS so is this possible if they sent the letter again to them not to withdraw or cancel I-140As right now I am in Canada,so I request them not to cancel I-140 and plz. do the consular processing for my case as I-140 is approved,so can someone advice me what will be the best thing,any advice will be appreciated.
more...
pictures I love them because they move
devs
06-26 05:29 AM
hi,
My h1 is approved in this years quota but i have not received I797. During this period if my h4 is stamped will my h1 be cancelled. or can i go to US on
h4 and then change my status to h1 ?
My h1 is approved in this years quota but i have not received I797. During this period if my h4 is stamped will my h1 be cancelled. or can i go to US on
h4 and then change my status to h1 ?
dresses And, most importantly, you can
shaji_p_j
01-22 01:48 PM
I am working on my H1B and on I-140 approved Stage. At the same time I have applied for I-485 as Derivative applicant on my wife's application and also got the Advanace Parol.
If I use the AP (obtained based on wife's application) will my H1B got invalidated? My intention is keep my H1B and to avoid the H1B stamping.
Thanks
If I use the AP (obtained based on wife's application) will my H1B got invalidated? My intention is keep my H1B and to avoid the H1B stamping.
Thanks
more...
makeup Your heart is pure and you
Macaca
09-27 05:46 PM
Bill Would Protect Frosh on Immigration (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_30/news/20086-1.html) By Jennifer Yachnin | ROLL CALL STAFF, September 20, 2007
House Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution designed to inoculate freshman lawmakers on the issue of immigration, despite concerns from within their own Caucus about reopening debate over the contentious topic.
According to several freshman Democratic lawmakers in attendance at a weekly breakfast meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Members were told to prepare statements on the resolution, which will endorse laws already on the books that prevent illegal immigrants from participating in taxpayer-funded programs, such as Social Security or food stamps.
In a draft of the resolution obtained by Roll Call, the measure expresses the sense of the House "with respect to the importance of upholding federal immigration laws and ensuring the integrity and security of the borders of the United States."
In addition to the language on public benefits, the draft resolution also contains provisions calling on the executive branch to enforce laws on voter fraud and border security.
But one House lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said some senior Members have objected to the proposal over concerns that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to limit the scope of the debate. The House largely abandoned plans to pursue a comprehensive immigration reform bill earlier this year after the Senate failed to cut off debate on its own version of the legislation, effectively killing the bill.
Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) began work on the resolution earlier this month in response to repeated Republican efforts to force votes on immigration on the House floor through the use of procedural amendments.
"We're trying to figure out a way we can do this and maintain party unity on the motions ... without making it a crisis," said one Democratic lawmaker, who is a member of the Whip operation.
Although one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified since plans have not been finalized, said the measure could move to the floor as early as next week, a House leadership aide said it is unlikely to be that soon.
To date, Democratic leaders have not demanded that Members vote against all motions to recommit - a procedural tool that can be used by the minority party immediately before a vote on final passage of a bill - unless the amendment contains language that would shelve the legislation.
"I've resisted motions to recommit unless they're substantive and then I'll vote for them," explained Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a freshman lawmaker who has faced attacks from the National Republican Congressional Committee for votes against some GOP-authored amendments on immigration.
"It's frustrating to me," Walz added, criticizing the amendments as political footballs. "I'm appreciative that our leadership lets us vote accordingly."
But that policy led to some confusion on the House floor in early August during a vote on a GOP-authored amendment to the Agriculture spending bill to prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs, with nearly 20 Democrats initially voting in favor of the proposal.
Republicans allege that the Democratic majority mishandled that vote, resulting in the defeat of the measure. GOP leaders assert that a tied 214-214 vote - rending a defeat - announced by the Speaker Pro Tem was inaccurate and that the motion had in fact passed 215-213 as Republicans changed their votes.
But Democrats dispute that version of events, noting that their own Members were changing votes on the House floor, resulting in the final tally of 212-216.
The dispute prompted the establishment of a select committee to investigate the vote, which is scheduled to hold its first meeting this morning, and produce an interim report Sept. 30.
Republican Rep. Tom Price (Ga.), who has sponsored similar amendments addressing the use of federal funds to assist illegal immigrants, including a measure that failed Tuesday night on a federal housing bill, expressed interest in the Democratic proposal.
"I'd love to be able to talk with them about it and work on it," Price said. He could not say whether such a measure would deter him from offering such amendments in the future without seeing the details of the bill.
"When I talk to folks at home they want to know why we're not including this language on every single piece of legislation," he added.
House Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution designed to inoculate freshman lawmakers on the issue of immigration, despite concerns from within their own Caucus about reopening debate over the contentious topic.
According to several freshman Democratic lawmakers in attendance at a weekly breakfast meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Members were told to prepare statements on the resolution, which will endorse laws already on the books that prevent illegal immigrants from participating in taxpayer-funded programs, such as Social Security or food stamps.
In a draft of the resolution obtained by Roll Call, the measure expresses the sense of the House "with respect to the importance of upholding federal immigration laws and ensuring the integrity and security of the borders of the United States."
In addition to the language on public benefits, the draft resolution also contains provisions calling on the executive branch to enforce laws on voter fraud and border security.
But one House lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said some senior Members have objected to the proposal over concerns that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to limit the scope of the debate. The House largely abandoned plans to pursue a comprehensive immigration reform bill earlier this year after the Senate failed to cut off debate on its own version of the legislation, effectively killing the bill.
Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) began work on the resolution earlier this month in response to repeated Republican efforts to force votes on immigration on the House floor through the use of procedural amendments.
"We're trying to figure out a way we can do this and maintain party unity on the motions ... without making it a crisis," said one Democratic lawmaker, who is a member of the Whip operation.
Although one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified since plans have not been finalized, said the measure could move to the floor as early as next week, a House leadership aide said it is unlikely to be that soon.
To date, Democratic leaders have not demanded that Members vote against all motions to recommit - a procedural tool that can be used by the minority party immediately before a vote on final passage of a bill - unless the amendment contains language that would shelve the legislation.
"I've resisted motions to recommit unless they're substantive and then I'll vote for them," explained Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a freshman lawmaker who has faced attacks from the National Republican Congressional Committee for votes against some GOP-authored amendments on immigration.
"It's frustrating to me," Walz added, criticizing the amendments as political footballs. "I'm appreciative that our leadership lets us vote accordingly."
But that policy led to some confusion on the House floor in early August during a vote on a GOP-authored amendment to the Agriculture spending bill to prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs, with nearly 20 Democrats initially voting in favor of the proposal.
Republicans allege that the Democratic majority mishandled that vote, resulting in the defeat of the measure. GOP leaders assert that a tied 214-214 vote - rending a defeat - announced by the Speaker Pro Tem was inaccurate and that the motion had in fact passed 215-213 as Republicans changed their votes.
But Democrats dispute that version of events, noting that their own Members were changing votes on the House floor, resulting in the final tally of 212-216.
The dispute prompted the establishment of a select committee to investigate the vote, which is scheduled to hold its first meeting this morning, and produce an interim report Sept. 30.
Republican Rep. Tom Price (Ga.), who has sponsored similar amendments addressing the use of federal funds to assist illegal immigrants, including a measure that failed Tuesday night on a federal housing bill, expressed interest in the Democratic proposal.
"I'd love to be able to talk with them about it and work on it," Price said. He could not say whether such a measure would deter him from offering such amendments in the future without seeing the details of the bill.
"When I talk to folks at home they want to know why we're not including this language on every single piece of legislation," he added.
girlfriend I think it worse to love
itsmesabby
07-19 03:18 AM
Regarding coming back on F1 after being on H4... You should really consider talking to an attorney. With F1 visa you need to prove that you would come back to India at the time of stamping, but with your spouse being on H1 and in states.. how do you thing you can prove that you will come back to India when your spouse is in the states..
hairstyles Look closely and you#39;ll see a
akhilmahajan
07-09 11:19 AM
I am in boston and can definitely join...........
vivekhruparel
07-15 01:33 PM
I am in. My 485 is going to be rejected and will be sent back in a couple weeks
tcsonly
07-24 07:40 PM
For how long you are waiting for GC and for how long you are willing to wait more for GC?
A lot of people have been for a long time. That is the reason IV has formed to eliminate/minimize the wait.
I don't think any one is willing to wait here !!!!
BTW, what's the point in your question ?
-C.
A lot of people have been for a long time. That is the reason IV has formed to eliminate/minimize the wait.
I don't think any one is willing to wait here !!!!
BTW, what's the point in your question ?
-C.
No comments:
Post a Comment