kanchiru
11-09 06:43 PM
Hi All,
I have applied I-485,I-765 and I-131(AP) for my wife as derivative when my priority date(March 26th 2006) became current on September 1st.
We recieved the Reciept notices for I-485,I-765 and I-131(AP) for my wife on September 30th.
My I-485 got approved on 11/05 .We didnot recieve FingerPrint notice still.
I would like to know how much time it generally takes for derivative I-485 approval .
-kanchiru
I have applied I-485,I-765 and I-131(AP) for my wife as derivative when my priority date(March 26th 2006) became current on September 1st.
We recieved the Reciept notices for I-485,I-765 and I-131(AP) for my wife on September 30th.
My I-485 got approved on 11/05 .We didnot recieve FingerPrint notice still.
I would like to know how much time it generally takes for derivative I-485 approval .
-kanchiru
wallpaper Tips for Bridal Hair : Make it
nashorn
12-12 01:08 PM
Hi friends,
My EAD was about to expire in 4 months. I'm going to apply for the renewal. Can I keep working if the application is pending?
You can work as long as the EAD is valid. If you meant to ask if you can legally work while your old EAD has expired and your new EAD is pending, the answer is NO.
One more thing, the USCIS is required by law to make decision on your EAD application withing 90 days upon receiving your application. But someone didn't get that within 90 days. That casused problem bacause you can only apply for renewal of your EAD if it is 90 days or less before your old EAD will expire.
My EAD was about to expire in 4 months. I'm going to apply for the renewal. Can I keep working if the application is pending?
You can work as long as the EAD is valid. If you meant to ask if you can legally work while your old EAD has expired and your new EAD is pending, the answer is NO.
One more thing, the USCIS is required by law to make decision on your EAD application withing 90 days upon receiving your application. But someone didn't get that within 90 days. That casused problem bacause you can only apply for renewal of your EAD if it is 90 days or less before your old EAD will expire.
pointlesswait
11-02 02:37 PM
damn...thats a first i have heard!!
2011 hair style for naturally curly hair, pics of short bob hairstyles
gc_chahiye
01-25 04:49 PM
Hi All,
My wife is currently working on H1B. She recently got her EAD through my GC application (I am the primary applicant). Can she use her EAD to work for her current company who is holding H1B?
Appreciate your response immediately
Thanks in Advance
yes, just fill out a new I-9, this time indicating that you are going to use your EAD.
My wife is currently working on H1B. She recently got her EAD through my GC application (I am the primary applicant). Can she use her EAD to work for her current company who is holding H1B?
Appreciate your response immediately
Thanks in Advance
yes, just fill out a new I-9, this time indicating that you are going to use your EAD.
more...
Mahatma
05-03 09:41 AM
Gurus,
here is my situation.
FP done in Nov 2007. Planning a trip to India in Dec 2008 to Jan 2009. What if I receive biometrics during this time? After 1 year of FP, I anticipate that there would be repeat Biometrics done.
Is there a way for us to request Biometrics early? I am going to renew EAD and AP 4 months before expiry (expire in Nov 2008). Will this take care of Biometrics renewal as well?
Thanks for your valuable inputs.
I am Eb1,
PD June 29,2007
TSC
RD Oct 18, 2007
ideally I expected GC to be done before my trip BUT strange are the ways of USCIS.....
here is my situation.
FP done in Nov 2007. Planning a trip to India in Dec 2008 to Jan 2009. What if I receive biometrics during this time? After 1 year of FP, I anticipate that there would be repeat Biometrics done.
Is there a way for us to request Biometrics early? I am going to renew EAD and AP 4 months before expiry (expire in Nov 2008). Will this take care of Biometrics renewal as well?
Thanks for your valuable inputs.
I am Eb1,
PD June 29,2007
TSC
RD Oct 18, 2007
ideally I expected GC to be done before my trip BUT strange are the ways of USCIS.....
kumar26fl
04-12 10:20 AM
Hi,
My wife and I both have EAD and AP. My wife is derivative on my 485 application. I am using H1b for employment though, while my wife is using EAD for employment.
We are planning to travel to India. I am going to continue to use my H1 b as I am going for visa stamping on my trip to India. My wife will be using AP for reentry.
Questions:
1) Do you see any complications while reentering in this scenario either for me or for my wife since I will be using H1 visa and she will be using AP.
2) Does she need to carry her employment verification letter since she is derivative of my application? Can the IO at poe entry ask for her employment? What should she be saying her purpose of visit or any such questions? Would it be ok to mention 'pending AOS' as the status.
Thanks
My wife and I both have EAD and AP. My wife is derivative on my 485 application. I am using H1b for employment though, while my wife is using EAD for employment.
We are planning to travel to India. I am going to continue to use my H1 b as I am going for visa stamping on my trip to India. My wife will be using AP for reentry.
Questions:
1) Do you see any complications while reentering in this scenario either for me or for my wife since I will be using H1 visa and she will be using AP.
2) Does she need to carry her employment verification letter since she is derivative of my application? Can the IO at poe entry ask for her employment? What should she be saying her purpose of visit or any such questions? Would it be ok to mention 'pending AOS' as the status.
Thanks
more...
glus
02-25 01:26 PM
NO, a 3-year extension is possible after I-140 is approved. In your case you will get a one-year extension based on PERM which is pending for 1 year, or is approved by the time you need to file for H-1B extension.
2010 long curly hair. wedding
Saikrishna
08-15 03:51 PM
GUYS - PLEASE SAY YES TO RALLY AND TRY TO ATTEND
IV CORE TEAM HAVE ALREADY COMPLAINT THAT WE DONT HAVE MUCH PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THIS RALLY AS WELL.
FORGET ABOUT YOUR RECIEPT NOTICE NOW AND CONCENRATE ON THESE RALLY WHICH WILL GIVE US ULTIMATE BENEFIT TO GIVE US GREEN CARD.
OTHERWISE BE A BIG LOSER SEARCHING FOR YOUR RECIEPT NOTICE STATUS OR AP OR EAD STATUS.
aTTEND RALLY , BE POSTIVE AND ACHIEVE END-GOAL OF GETTING GREEN CARD BEFORE NEXT YEAR 2008.
AWAKE AWAKE UNTIL YOU REACH THE GOAL - SWAMI VIVEKANANDA
SUPPORT THE IV CORE TEAM RALLY AT WASHINGTON DC ON 18 SEPT:)
IV CORE TEAM HAVE ALREADY COMPLAINT THAT WE DONT HAVE MUCH PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THIS RALLY AS WELL.
FORGET ABOUT YOUR RECIEPT NOTICE NOW AND CONCENRATE ON THESE RALLY WHICH WILL GIVE US ULTIMATE BENEFIT TO GIVE US GREEN CARD.
OTHERWISE BE A BIG LOSER SEARCHING FOR YOUR RECIEPT NOTICE STATUS OR AP OR EAD STATUS.
aTTEND RALLY , BE POSTIVE AND ACHIEVE END-GOAL OF GETTING GREEN CARD BEFORE NEXT YEAR 2008.
AWAKE AWAKE UNTIL YOU REACH THE GOAL - SWAMI VIVEKANANDA
SUPPORT THE IV CORE TEAM RALLY AT WASHINGTON DC ON 18 SEPT:)
more...
Blog Feeds
05-17 12:40 PM
There have been many op-ed pieces discussing the GOP's suicidal alienation of Latino voters. There is no evidence that Republicans will even get a short term boost from anti-immigration voters (the relatively small number of people who make that their major electoral issue) since these folks overwhelmingly vote Republican anyway. And the long term harm in terms of getting votes from the country's fastest growing electoral group will be massive. The Washington Post's Michael Gerson piece this morning does a good job summing up the stakes: Ethnic politics is symbolic and personal. Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gained African...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/the-gops-damaged-brand.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/the-gops-damaged-brand.html)
hair Bohemian look, dark curly hair
esurfer
04-09 02:52 PM
Could we continue using this http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4191
thread for NSC 140 status.
Thanks
thread for NSC 140 status.
Thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
One of the stumbling blocks in the behind the scenes negotiations to craft a bipartisan immigration reform bill that also has the support of business and labor unions has been a proposal to create a commission that would basically determine quotas for all employment-based immigration categories. The business community and many Republicans have expressed concerns that the commission would be politicized. Labor unions have not been compromising on this issue and that has caused delays in working out a final deal that will allow Senator Schumer to introduce his bill. According to journalist Jeffrey Kaye, however, a compromise may be...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/labor-appears-ready-to-compromise-on-commission-proposal.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/labor-appears-ready-to-compromise-on-commission-proposal.html)
hot Hairstyles For Medium Thick
pd052009
03-25 12:07 PM
Countdown: 37 More days to go (Incl. today)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
more...
house Wedding Bridal HairStyles
grimreaper
11-17 12:37 PM
Yes , Under certain circumstances. You will either need to qualify for economic hardship, or it should be done via CPT ( it should be offered by your program). Best bet will be for you to talk to your International student advisor.
tattoo Beautiful long Curly Hair with
admin
02-03 02:19 PM
Today, I heard back from a senator and a congressman from New Jersey regarding the webfaxes that I had sent them. Here are a few things that I learnt
The associate in the Senator's office was not aware of this issue and the one in the congressman was only partially aware of it. If this is the situation of the associates who look after immigration with the lawmakers in NJ, where there are thousands of EB-GC aspirants, the situation might much worse in other states.
The associates in the lawmaker's office do take the effort to read through the faxes, thus making it effective to bring our issues to their attention.
Our WebFax application is working fine. Previously I never got replies to my web faxes. What might have helped is the fact that the web fax did have my complete contact information. This makes it more trustworthy in their eyes.
So I request all of you to send out WebFaxes to your lawmakers. It is free for you and takes only a couple of minutes. Once you have sent it, urge your friends also to do the same.
Stand up and be heard.
The associate in the Senator's office was not aware of this issue and the one in the congressman was only partially aware of it. If this is the situation of the associates who look after immigration with the lawmakers in NJ, where there are thousands of EB-GC aspirants, the situation might much worse in other states.
The associates in the lawmaker's office do take the effort to read through the faxes, thus making it effective to bring our issues to their attention.
Our WebFax application is working fine. Previously I never got replies to my web faxes. What might have helped is the fact that the web fax did have my complete contact information. This makes it more trustworthy in their eyes.
So I request all of you to send out WebFaxes to your lawmakers. It is free for you and takes only a couple of minutes. Once you have sent it, urge your friends also to do the same.
Stand up and be heard.
more...
pictures images wedding hairstyle white
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
dresses prom hairstyles for curly hair
rockstart
04-29 10:02 PM
I think your attorney can file an ammendment.
more...
makeup Wedding Hair Styles
sureshuma1970@yahoo.com
06-14 10:06 PM
I am in a similar situation , does anyone know how long does it take to transfer a case from AOS to CP?
girlfriend wedding hair down tomatoes
go2roomshare
02-27 09:01 PM
Does any one have any advice about AC21
Is it advisable to file AC21 soon after changing/ joining new employer?
OR
Just keep quite and look for any RFE, if any RFE comes up send AC21 form and updated employer information along with it.
IS there any guidelines from people who already did it successfully
Is it advisable to file AC21 soon after changing/ joining new employer?
OR
Just keep quite and look for any RFE, if any RFE comes up send AC21 form and updated employer information along with it.
IS there any guidelines from people who already did it successfully
hairstyles wedding hair up with weil
amslonewolf
04-16 03:30 PM
Hi - I am just wondering, if Medical residency applications are subject to the yearly 65,000 Quota? Does anyone know?
Macaca
08-05 07:42 AM
A Polarized, and Polarizing, Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301949.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com), August 5, 2007
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
puskeygadha
12-08 05:36 AM
Lawyer did not give me case number saying that..since it is property of
company I cannot have it...is there a way to steal it
company I cannot have it...is there a way to steal it
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий